#1 Questions about the B-36
=================================================
Username: James1978
Nickname: New Guy
Posts: 1
Date: 7/21/02 19:31
Questions about the B-36
As I understand it, the original concept behind the B-36 for for a bomber that could attack Germany from the United States in the event that Britain fell.
Without debating whether or not Germany could have defeated Britain, could the B-36 have done the job?
Were Trans-Atlantic raids feasible? How well would the B-36 have held up against German defences? How effective would German defences have been? Let's use 1946-1950 as our time frame.
James
=================================================
Username: Mike Kozlowski
Nickname: BUFF Fan
Posts: 257
Date: 7/21/02 20:22
Re: Questions about the B-36
The B-36 - if everything else remained constant - would have been more than capable of reaching targets in Continental Europe with a pretty respectable bombload.
It certainly had the range to do so, and as far as fighter opposition and AAA went, don't forget that Hitler cut back on the advanced programs when he THOUGHT he'd defeated the UK - had he actually defeated them, he may well have screwed things up even worse. In addition, even if he had the Me262 (for example) to use against the B-36, it might have been useless.
The later - and much more capable - MiG-15 was of almost no use at all against it. What's even more interesting to think about is that the first generation of guided weapons was just coming into development at the time, and certainly would have been accelerated by the defeat (or neutralization) of the UK. The thought of B-36's lobbing TV-guided bombs onto Luftwaffe airfields and Ruhr factories is an interesting one....
Mike
=================================================
Username: Seer Stuart
Nickname: The Prince of Darkness
Posts: 626
Date: 7/21/02 21:51
Re: Questions about the B-36
The key thing about the B-36 is what it would have been dropping.I don't see how Germany could have stood up to a prolonged nuclear bombardment.
Could the B-36s have got through? Almost certainly; the Me-163 might have been a threat but the altitude/speed combination of the B-36 made it a bear to intercept.
=================================================
Username: James1978
Nickname: New Guy
Posts: 2
Date: 7/22/02 0:18
Re: Questions about the B-36
Thanks to both Mike and Stuart. That partially answers my question and raises a new one. When the original requirement for the B-36 was drawn up, did those writing the requirement have any idea about the A-bomb?
I guess what I'm wondering is did the AAF or later the USAF ever give serious thought to useing the B-36 for mass conventional raids such as those that occured in WWII. Given that the B-36 couldn't just stage out of any old grass field, what would a Trans-Atlantic raid on Germany look like?
Thanks.
James
=================================================
Username: PatPickering
Nickname: Old Friend
Posts: 86
Date: 7/22/02 0:18
Re: Questions about the B-36
When did both the B-17 and B-29 go from being heavy bombers to medium bombers?
=================================================
Username: Seer Stuart
Nickname: The Prince of Darkness
Posts: 628
Date: 7/22/02 0:23
Re: Questions about the B-36
The B-29 and B-50 were reclassified from being Very Heavy Bombers to Medium Bombers on the 26th June 1947 (the day the first B-36 entered operational service).
The B-17 was long gone by then (as a bomber anyway) so remained a Heavy Bomber to the end of its service life.
=================================================
Username: Mike Kozlowski
Nickname: BUFF Fan
Posts: 258
Date: 7/22/02 0:23
Re: Questions about the B-36
Stuart-
Let's say, for the sake of the hypothetical, that the US was faced with a situation where they would have to execute a long-range bombardment of Occupied Continental Europe and (at the very least) a partially occupied UK and Ireland. Even with increased effort on the Manhattan Project - on top of what they were already doing - they might not have been able to produce a bomb until late 44 at best, and it's been pointed out here that production on the early weapons was painfully slow. What kind of conventional bombing campaign would the USAAF been able to carry out, given the limited number of B-36s available other than a conventional one? In addition, if everything else stayed the same, it seems that there would have been a lot of pressure to use the B-36 in the Pacific - it would have been able to hit targets deep within the Empire and conquered territories from the surviving US posessions and Allied bases in Australia.
V/r,
Mike
=================================================
Username: Seer Stuart
Nickname: The Prince of Darkness
Posts: 629
Date: 7/22/02 0:36
Re: Questions about the B-36
I think we would have to assume "Germany First" would still apply. Now the question is, could the US have mass produced the Mark 1 device earlier? he reason why the US went so quickly to the Model 1561 Mark 3 and Mark 4 (implosion) devices was that they were a lot more efficient than the gun type Mark 1 and had greater potential for bigger bangs. However, if Germany was still around (and attempting to produce their own devices even though we now know they were barking up the wrong tree) the US could have gone to producing the Mark 1s even though they were yield-limited and inefficient. Just drop the odd Model 1561 whenever available.
Now the B-36 had the load-lifting capacity for at least four Mark 1s so technically could deliver them on up to four targets (probably in a stick across a single city) or sequentially on seperate targets. My guess is we'd see the Aluminum Overcasts coming in high and fast (probably over 40,000 feet and around 400 mph) and hitting several targets as part of a single raid. Some birds would unload conventionals on airbases etc etc, then one bird would do the nuke run.
Stick bombing the Rhine with nukes has potential.
The Germans would have plenty of notice about what was going to happen with each raid but they wouldn't quite know where. The Russians couldn't stop the RB-36s right up to the mid-1950s so I don't see the Germans would have much chance a decade earlier. Now, there is no doubt the Germans would try to do countermeasures but given their previous lamentable scientific perfromance, they would make lots of prototypes and put nothing into production. Meanwhile industrial area after industrial area meets instant sunrise.
=================================================
Username: Mike Kozlowski
Nickname: BUFF Fan
Posts: 259
Date: 7/22/02 0:50
Re: Questions about the B-36
"....When the original requirement for the B-36 was drawn up, did those writing the requirement have any idea about the A-bomb? "
James,
My data says that the original RFP for the Peacemaker was requested on 11 Apr 41 - Einstein's famous letter to FDR was delievered on 11 Oct 39, eighteen months to the day earlier. Although when the RFP went out somebody at GHQ Army might had those thoughts, it seems kind of unlikely - though the need to haul huge quantities of conventional weapons long distances would of course have made it ideal to carry the first generation of nuclear weapons with little modification compared to the Silverplate B-29s.
As far as what a mission would have looked like....picture an episode of the Twilight Zone by way of Tom Clancy.
Even with the range of the B-36, it seems that they would have been stationed as far east as possible, so Goose Bay and Gander seem most likely and bases in Massachusetts and Maine would probably have been built. These would have been extremely complicated and difficult operations, and losses simply due to weather and navigational mistakes would have been significant until the learning curve went up. Missions might very well have been planned they way Curtis LeMay ran the air war over Japan - each aircraft making its own way to several different targets, complicating detection and interception.
The biggest problem the USAAF might have run into would have been keeping enough B-36s online to maintain a constant mission rate. The Peacekeeper was a reliable enough aircraft, but when it broke, it broke hard. Near depot-level facilities and manpower would have had to have been available at every base to keep a decent availablity rate going. At nineteen aircraft per Bomb Group, these would have been huge, supply hungry operations. It took approximately eighteen months to deliver just those aircraft, and even under wartime pressures, it might not have been much faster.
Mike
=================================================
Username: James1978
Nickname: New Guy
Posts: 3
Date: 7/22/02 0:50
Re: B-36 Production
OK, if Britain had fallen and the B-36 program was accelerated and had resources thrown at it, what kind of numbers are we looking at? How many B-36s could Convair churn out a month?
From what you've said about the B-36s ability to penetrate enemy air space and survive, and given its bomb load, would that many B-36s be needed? It sounds like it had the potential to be a real "Silver Bullet".
Thanks.
James
=================================================
Username: weirdo
Nickname: John Smith
Posts: 175
Date: 7/22/02 2:00
German detection of bombers
What about Russia before I forget to ask.
I have to think that GB would have fell well before 1946 if at all. That said, who knows what would have happened if so much pressure would have been removed from Germany?
Assuming GB fell, and assuming the Germans had the guts/ability to put several ships to sea, I see the B-36 squadrons being easily detected...early in their mission. I have to think that the Germans would have hd the capability to destroy most of the bombers well out to sea--per mission--if their aircraft designs would have had the leisure to change design philosophy...and they guessed right.
Of course, the A-bomb makes a BIG difference. Imagine the scenario of nuking an invasion force.
What if Hitler had NOT been anti-Semitic. That thought scares me most of all.
I know bwtter than to get involved in this type of discussion...go easy on me.
=================================================
Username: WarshipAdmin
Nickname: Greg
Posts: 255
Date: 7/22/02 2:42
Re: German detection of bombers
Intercept them over the sea with what ? (I'd have liked to hear more about the MiG's attempts from Mike, given their nominal ceiling of 51000 ft, and 0.9M top speed). Would Wasserfall have been any good? It seems to have the speed and the range.
How quickly did they get the jet engines added? looks like 1950 - were the B36's effective in this role before then?
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/b ... 36-01.html
Seems like a good site, hours of fun.
Cheers
Greg Locock
=================================================
Username: Hoahao
Nickname: Old Friend
Posts: 267
Date: 7/22/02 3:13
Re: German detection of bombers
I believe they had jets on by 48. The B-36 was actually held up in development because of the need for production of B-24s and the like. It was obvious by the end of the Battle of Britain that the B-36 would not need to fly the Atlantic. I believe that had GB fallen, then there would not have been as much production of B-17s, B-24s, or maybe even B-29s and a much greater pressure on for the B-36. There is a photo floating around of one mock up with twin tails.
=================================================
Username: Sea Skimmer
Nickname: Interstellar Warlord
Posts: 289
Date: 7/22/02 4:04
Re: Questions about the B-36
Given how fast the US was cranking out Carriers and escorts of all types, I have to wounder if the B-36 would be an iusse for long enough to be effective. The Germans would be hard pressed to stop 23-35 assorted aircraft carriers loaded with 80% fighters escorting a couple corps of troops which are then landed in Northern Ireland.
Such resources would be on hand by the time the B-36 is around.
Once thats done, the surge of aircraft coming across the Atlanic would be huge, and the B-29 would come into play.
Say, might America make a landing in Dakar or some place in Africa for use as a B-36 base? American naval supremacy would ensure its safety and B-24s and 29s could be used to keep German airfields suppressed.
I would think flying over rough terrain would make navigation somewhat simpler.
=================================================
Username: Mike Kozlowski
Nickname: BUFF Fan
Posts: 260
Date: 7/22/02 5:36
Re: German detection of bombers
Greg-
Actually, Chuck Yeager got a MiG-15 to 56,500 ft - but he was apparently the only US test pilot to do so, the others starting to suffer from anoxia at 48,000.
Yeager did do a series of mock attacks on B-36s at about the same time, and although he was actually able to get close the plane was literally hanging on the edge of its performance envelope. At that altitude, directional stability was - to put it gently - questionable. in addition, the -15 probably didn't have the punch to knock a B-36 down at extreme range. IIRC, Stuart did an excellent and detailed writeup on the subject some time back.
Mike
=================================================
Username: weirdo
Nickname: John Smith
Posts: 177
Date: 7/22/02 12:56
"Intercept them over the sea with what?"
I'm already diggin' a hole I can't climb out of, but here goes a few more shovels full.
I'm assuming GB would have fallen in early '41...a long time before 1946...a long, long time to develop a new aircraft genre. Had the Germans had much leisure after the fall of GB, who knows what they'd have developed. It isn't that hard to develope a high-altitude fighter, but they'd have had to see the need for it. In the 1944 to 1948 timeframe, a fighter would have either been a high-altitude specialist or not, and in the absense of the intense pressure they did really receive in 1943 to 1945, and if they'd have received word of a super-hi-altitude bomber (by 1945 standards) in development, they certainly would have had time to make an interceptor. A high-altitude interceptor ain't no big deal apart from it being utterly specialized for that purpose and useless for anything else. If my assumptions are valid, the question becomes, how could the USA have stopped the Germans from intercepting the bombers?
Where would the Russians have gotten their MIG's engine without GB. I suppose it could have come from the USA. I'd also like to say of the Russians, that their contribution to beating the Germans in WWII in greatly underapperciated. During the timeframe where GB and America were applying little pressure to continental Europe, the Russians achieved some very impressive victories...somehow. Without the possibility of GB and America puting pressure on continental Europe until god-knows-when, could the Russiand have sustained the pressure in the East?
Let me stick my neck out one more inch: had GB fallen, the war with the Japanese would have been much less intense. Imagine all those carriers operating in the Atlantic. Imagine a super-high-altitude carrier-born fighter to be used to escort the bombers. Or, imagine a super-high-altitude fighter that could escort the bombers to Europe and back...four-man crews? Twin engines? Remember the Bf-110's failure?
=================================================
Username: DocMartyn
Nickname: Cranium Cracker
Posts: 309
Date: 7/22/02 13:52
Without Frank Whittle?
Would the US have been able to build Jet Enhines without the UK contribution?
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay ... Aero11.htm
Not fighting, just asking?
Finally in 1941, GE received its first contract from the U.S. Army Air Corps to build a gas turbine engine based on Frank Whittles design. Six months later, on April 18, 1942, GEs engineers successfully ran their I-A enginethe first jet engine to operate in the United States. On October 2, 1942, the engine made its first flight at Muroc Dry Lake, California. The jet age had come to America. The company followed shortly with the J-31, the first turbojet produced in quantity in the United States.
Two years later, in June 1944, the Air Corps' first operational fighter, the Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star, flew powered by a J33/I-40 engine rated at 4,000 pounds (17,793 newtons) thrust. In 1947, it would set a world speed record at 620 miles per hour (998 kilometers per hour).
The J33 became an important wartime engine, and the U.S. Air Force needed quantity production quickly. The Air Force licensed J33 production to the Allison division of General Motors. Allison would go on to built thousands of the GE-designed engine while GE built only 300. Production of both the J33 and its follow-on J35, designed by GE, went to Allison.
GE began developing the J47 from the earlier J35. The J47 would power several of the new front-line military aircraft, including the F-86 Sabre Jet, which set a new worlds speed record of just under 671 miles per hour (1,080 kilometers per hour) in September 1948. Demand for the engine soared during the Korean War, and more than 35,000 were delivered by the end of the 1950s. During 1953-54, J47 production reached a rate of 975 engines per month. The J47 was also the first turbojet certified for civil use by the U.S. Civil Aeronautics Administration and the first to use an electrically controlled afterburner to boost its thrust. The engine spanned 30 years of operational service before it was retired in 1978.
=================================================
Username: Hoahao
Nickname: Old Friend
Posts: 269
Date: 7/22/02 13:53
Re: "Intercept them over the sea with what?"
We know for a fact that the Grmans stopped tech development on such things as the Me-262 even though they lost the battle of Britain and were fighting the Sovs and had declared war on a tech monster called the USA Odds are, they would have been caught with their pants down when the first B-36s showed up.
Odds are, the war with Japan would have been more intense. Odds are, UK would not have been invaded or occupied, but that a political settlement which is what Hitler really wanted. In that case, the US may not have been involved in a war in Europe, hence no need for a B-36.
I think that if the US did want to take on Germany, and that UK was neutral and the Sovs, say defeated or maybe just hanging on along the Urals, a 48 time table where the US had about 58 bombs and probably producing about 9 per month is very doable. There are lots of what ifs here as to what the bombs would have been aimed at and doctrine since you would not have the bombing surveys to guide you.
=================================================
Username: Supatra
Nickname: Goddess of Pain & Hurt
Posts: 470
Date: 7/22/02 14:07
Re: German detection of bombers
Please excuse poor dumb grunt butting in on such talk of aircraft. I ask my boyfriend over this he explain problem of aircraft making intercept. If get this wrong is his fault OK
Please to imagine a big cone in sky with base on ground and point at highest point fighter can reach. Radius of cone is distance fighter can reach before its fuel runs out. For this assume cone is even change in diameter all the way up but is not so. In real world is most uneven and shape changes for every type of aircraft. But for this assume is nice regular cone. Now area inside cone is where intercept can take place. So what ground control of fighter must do is place fighter just so that target is inside cone when fighter reach right time and place. Where area of cone at altitude is large this is no problem where area is very small then is big problem.
This is because aircraft being intercepted will try to move away from fighter. If can make change in course then cone will move fighter will be in wrong place. Now fighter must move to place aircraft intercept in cone. But if cone is very small fighter will run out of fuel before can reach new place bomber is. Now have another problem. Figures you read in books are all for best possible condition. No load carried by fighter in good weather with good pilot. If aircraft carry load is not in best possible condition perfromance drops quickly. Give example. Khun Wikki has F5E is rated for 17,000 meters. But this is without load. Even with normal fuel load and with ammunition for 20 millimeter guns this drop by 1,000 meters. If he carry missiles drop still more.
Also Wikki tell me that big aircraft with large wings fly better high up then small aircraft with small wings. Do not understand this for rockets fly well high up they havbe no wings at all. But that is why I prefer to pound mud. He tell me was time VIP come to visit us for official business. State aircraft was much modified Boeing 747 come in high up to save fuel. We send up F5s to escort in as show of respect but Boeing must slow down so F5s can keep up.
If wish perhaps can get Khun Wikki to come on here and explain better.
=================================================
Username: David Newton
Nickname: The English Adminstrator
Posts: 1038
Date: 7/22/02 14:15
Re: German detection of bombers
If Wikki does post here, make sure he knows that we know about the golf course incident last year!
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with mustard.
=================================================
Username: weirdo
Nickname: John Smith
Posts: 178
Date: 7/22/02 14:17
I'm bailing out of this!
It's too hot in here for me!
What was the B-36's operational altitude? Over 40,000 feet? Germany had a fighter--I think a TA152 with long, thin wings--that could fight at 40,000 in early 1945, maybe higher. This aircraft was developed under realistic conditions so, what were the possibilties without pressure from the West? I think someone has said already though that Germant may have been less prepared for the B-36 because of an early victory in GB.
These discussions are fun though...aren't they? I'm still wondering what a jet-powered, carrier-born, high-altitude fighter would look like. Heck, the thing could take off from a tether, much less a catapault.
=================================================
Username: David Newton
Nickname: The English Adminstrator
Posts: 1039
Date: 7/22/02 14:26
Re: I'm bailing out of this!
As Suphi says, it is not only the absolute figures that have to be looked at. What has to be considered is, how fast can a fighter get to the relevant altitude, how long can it stay at that altitiude, how well can it manoeuvre at that altitude, and then after that, how well can the bomber perform at that altitude?
Stuart says that RB36s could penetrate the Soviet air defence network into the 1950s with virtual impunity. That is 10 years after WWII, and even in peacetime then, aerospace technology was advancing extremely quickly. Consider that B29s could not be touched by Japanese fighters in 1945, when they were at high level, and yet by 1952, they had to be withdrawn from Korea because they were hopelessly vulnerable to interception.
The Germans were totally naff at bringing prototypes to production late in the war, because of Hitler's R&D saavy (about level with his military saavy!). Therefore, that leads me towards the conclusion that they would not have been able to provide something capable of dealing with the B36 in the 1940s. Their existing planes simply did not have the performance to get to the height required in time, and their prototypes would not be fielded in high enough numbers.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with mustard.
=================================================
Username: Hoahao
Nickname: Old Friend
Posts: 271
Date: 7/22/02 14:39
Re: I'm bailing out of this!
You have another problem here. The B-36 could have come in at night, using radar for the bomb drops. I do not know how accurate an A-bomb drop from 40,000 feet by radar at night would have been in '48/'49, but the Germans now would not only have to have a fighter with the ability to intercept with a sufficent weapon load, but do so at night.
Would the Germans have had a well built radar interception system integrated with a night fighter net in 48 if they were not facing a strategic bombing campaign through the early to mid forties??
=================================================
Username: Sea Skimmer
Nickname: Interstellar Warlord
Posts: 292
Date: 7/22/02 14:47
Re: I'm bailing out of this!
But the B-36s used in the 1950's would have had the added jet engines. I thought those were added speciicly because they aircraft could be intercepted by MiG-15's with only its propellers.
"Only the very clear sighted could have seen the triple significance of August 6 1870: the collapse of the cavalry; the transformation of the infantry; and the triumph of the gun."
- Michael Howard
=================================================
Username: James1978
Nickname: New Guy
Posts: 5
Date: 7/22/02 18:02
Re: Raid Frequency and Manpower
Thanks Mike. So basically we'd be looking at no more than a few hundred B-36s in total. It sounds like raids would occur no more than 2-3 times per week and would only contain a few tens of bombers.
Do you have any idea what kind of production numbers Convair could have acheived under war-time conditions?
On the manpower issue. I'd read that the B-29 program sucked up enough manpower for ten divisions. Do you know how much manpower the SAC B-36 force consumed?
Thanks.
James
OK, I can't seem to get my replies to stay in order. Can someone please tell me how. Thank you.
=================================================
Username: weirdo
Nickname: John Smith
Posts: 181
Date: 7/22/02 18:07
Re: Raid Frequency and Manpower
Use the reply icon that immediately preceeds the text. It's just below the "Posted At:" line...if that makes sense.
=================================================
Username: Theodore
Nickname: Resident Vexillologist
Posts: 601
Date: 7/22/02 18:22
Re: Questions about the B-36
Forget Newfoundland and New England - try Iceland.
<b>Gravity: it's not just a good idea - it's the law.</b>
=================================================
Username: Mike Kozlowski
Nickname: BUFF Fan
Posts: 261
Date: 7/22/02 18:52
Au Contraire, Mon Vexillologist....
....If things are that bad, there are almost certainly Luftwaffe raiders within range of Iceland. It does seem reasonable that even in a worst-case scenario, the US would still have hold of Iceland - but placing assets that valuable and that scarce within range of intruders who could do serious damage seems a bit risky.
Mike
=================================================
Username: Theodore
Nickname: Resident Vexillologist
Posts: 602
Date: 7/22/02 19:00
A possibility, but...
...didn't we plan to operate B-52s from Iceland?
=================================================
Username: Hoahao
Nickname: Old Friend
Posts: 274
Date: 7/22/02 20:20
Re: I'm bailing out of this!
B-36 site
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-36.htm
=================================================
Username: Seer Stuart
Nickname: The Prince of Darkness
Posts: 630
Date: 7/22/02 23:00
The B-36
The jets were added so the B-36 could get clear of the target area when a device initiated. The B-29 was really very marginal in that respect, it needed a series of violent manoeuvers and some measure of luck to get clear. The B-36 was dropping more powerful devices and was more vulnerable to blast so the jets were needed to get away from the initiation area.
=================================================
Username: Seer Stuart
Nickname: The Prince of Darkness
Posts: 631
Date: 7/22/02 23:03
Re: Raid Frequency and Manpower
But remember the B-36 could carry four times the conventional bombload of a B-29 (up to 83,000 pounds). So a smaller number of aircraft go a long way. Also, the B-36 was built at a time when US industry was largely demobilizing post WW2 and (later) rearming for the Korean War. By the time that was out the way, the old -36 was obsolescent with better things on the way so there was no point in mass producing it.
=================================================
Username: K Newman
Nickname: Bubblehead Cop
Posts: 236
Date: 7/22/02 23:40
Re: A possibility, but...
We had fields in Greenland too. The ASW aircraft needed to plug the Mid Ocean Meeting Point (MOMP) air gap often flew from there. Greenland was a little far off for your average Luftwaffe bomber.
=================================================
Username: KingSargent
Nickname: Don't Tread On Me
Posts: 745
Date: 7/23/02 0:02
High altitude fighters and jets
Most nations had very high altitude fighters in design or test (and some limited production) during WW2. The threat anticipated did not materialize, so they were held in abeyance.
But the designs were there, waiting for the B-36 or something like it to appear.
----------------------------------------------------------
As for the US not being able to build jets without British assistance, I think development would have actually gone faster, especially if the British 'Boffins' boogied to the US on the fall of Britain. (Think of a submarine loading scientists with bags full of thermionic tubes and turbojet plans in a remote Scottish loch, then sneaking out through the blockade of the Dreaded
Kriegsmarine to deliver its Precious Cargo to the Last Bastion Of Freedom.....)
While the British did the initial research on turbojets and radar, US scientists were able to pick up the balls and run with them, especially when it came to production. Even British radar production was dependent on parts produced in the US, and some research time was wasted shuttling prototypes across the Atlantic. GE was probably the world's leading turbine producer at the time, and was much more able to churn out turbojets in numbers than British industry was.
God, Guts, and Paranoia made America great.
=================================================
Username: Hoahao
Nickname: Old Friend
Posts: 275
Date: 7/23/02 2:49
"We're digging Hitler's grave today!!"
Ahhh... I knew I'd find it eventually. Ain't Goggle grand??
www.aviationheritagemuseum.com
Left side and click "History of Av.in N Tex". Great social history, B-36 starts about 55% of way down. Please note how fast the US created a mass aviation production capacity.
Photo of a twin tailed B-36 to boot!!
=================================================
Username: Johan Lup
Nickname: New Guy
Posts: 5
Date: 7/23/02 9:25
Informative discussion....!
I would like to mention:
* had Nazi Germany defeated/occupied Britain in 1940/41 there is a fair chance that Hitler would not have made one of his major mistakes, namely declaring war on the US (as he did on Dec 10th, 1941)
* the performance of the pre-jet engines versions of the B-36 (that became available only during the late '40ies) appears quite managable for late piston-engined and early jet-engined fighters
* attacking Germany from say New Foundland appears to have resulted in a flight distance that would have seriously limited the bomb load
* the bomb load restriction coupled to the questions re mission frequency mentioned by other posters would have made the sufficiency of conventional bombing questionabel
* while there are good reasons to bash the Germans for frequent inability to turn innovative ideas into fielded weapons (systems), they had some successes in this regard also - never underestimate your opponent!
=================================================
Username: Hoahao
Nickname: Old Friend
Posts: 277
Date: 7/23/02 14:49
Re: Informative discussion....!
The What If dept...
As we have discussed Operation Sea Lion and know where that led, I think we need to extrapolate something more realistic then an occupation of UK. A more realistic possibility would be that the Germans manage to bag the BEF at Dunkirk, a better fought Battle of Britain(Germanwise),and a negotiated peace breaks out. This would have interesting results cause now we have more in comparison to the Napoleonic wars in the sense of periods of war and peace as opposed to a continued war til one side is totally destroyed.
If the Brits are now out of it, but still in being, Hitler can go after the Sovs with more wind at his back. He still probably cuts tech development, he probably bashes the Sovs harder and the Sovs get much less aid. He may still declare war on the US, after all, declaring war on the US was a big mistake with the Brits still in the war, and a much smaller one if the Brits are out. He might have considered that the US without UK basing would have a hard time reaching Europe while he could conduct a submarine war off the US coast with impunity.
The US still faces the same set of problems. The Germans are still a threat; the UK might jump back in, but if not you have a basing problem. Hitler only declared war cause the Japanese attacked, so we now have a war in the Pacific with the Japanese maybe attacking Singapore so does Hitler declare war on UK again?? If it's just the US with out the Brits in the Pacific, the turn around is probably quicker cause all the stuff to N Africa now goes to the Pacific. You still have to wait til the new carriers come on line but you have more landing craft and troops and logistic lift for simultanious island hopping. A quicker approach to Japan means you need the B-24/B-17 for bombing; can you use those instead?? I could see the B-29 dropped and the B-36 speeded up if the US is 8 months ahead of where it historically was.
The key question for US policy makers is, if the a-bomb is available, do you use it against Japan and wake the Germans up to the fact that it is possible to develop. With out the impact of the a-bomb and a maybe more inefficent bombing campaign against Japan with B-17/B-24s, you probably have to invade Japan. Still, with an invasion of Japan and it's high costs, the war in the Pacific is over by end '46 and the a-bomb points the way to striking Germany without the high losses just experienced with a Japanese invasion.
Now it's 1947 and you will probably see a Germany and Soviet Union bogged down against each other with Germany holding a large section of Russian, and the Sovs not strong enough to push them out. The B-36 has had more time spent on it to iron out it's development problems, and a-bomb development and production has more impetus without the psyhcological or financial let down post 45 in our real time line.
You can get around some of the basing problems by aireal refueling. By 48, you probably could have 500 B-36s, some of which might be tankers, you have at least 58 a-bombs and are making 9 a month, the US conventionally has recovered from a Japanese invasion and reoriented towards the Atlantic, and Stalin is hanging on, knowing the US has "the bomb" from his spies.
Once again, with out the historical US/UK strategic bombing campaign, how well developed would the German air defense net be?? The odds are that if the Germans cut tech development with the UK still in and fighting historically, they would not have reinstated it til later.
I think Stuart's idea of mixed conventional and nuke strikes is accurate, even with a small B-36 force of only 150 bombers and you refuel. If the US can get a base south of Europe, you come in at a lot of angles. That opens other questions as to how many nukes you wanna use in the initial attack, how many for a second wave, do you give some to the Italians, do you hit oil targets in Romania, etc, etc. Another problem is dud nukes or shot down nuke bombers allowing a device to fall into German hands. It might not matter as getting production and such up while your opponet is raining nukes on you could be real tough.
=================================================
Username: David Newton
Nickname: The English Adminstrator
Posts: 1056
Date: 7/23/02 15:02
Re: Informative discussion....!
Just to give an idea of how advanced air to air refuelling was as a concept around that time, consider that in the proposed invasion of Japan, RAF Lancasters would operate in the Pacific and join in the bombing campaign. They would do that through the use of air to air refuelling.
I believe that proposals were in hand to bring the first AWACS-type aircraft into service as well, an airbourne radar picket to relieve the pressure on the picket destroyers that had been sunk by Kamikazis at a rather alarming rate around Okinawa.
=================================================
Username: Sea Skimmer
Nickname: Interstellar Warlord
Posts: 295
Date: 7/23/02 15:04
Re: Informative discussion....!
I doubt a nuke that hit the ground from 40,000 feet would boost the Germans efforts too much, especially if a few bombs are used on the Czech uranium mines.
=================================================
Username: JPaulMartin
Nickname: Capitalist Pig
Posts: 19
Date: 7/23/02 15:34
Stick Bombing Questions
I don't understand how stick bombing would work with nuclear bombs. It seems to me that the blast from the first bomb would knock the second radically off course while it was still falling. If the second bomb was not dropped until the shockwave from the first had passed, then the delay would be several minutes and the distance between targets around 15miles minimum (probably more as 400mph=6.67mile per min).
On a related note, how much would the B-36 have had to manuever after dropping the bomb? The B-29s at Hiroshima and Nagasaki had to make radical manuevers to avoid damage. I realize that the B-36 is dropping from about a third higher and about 50 percent faster; is this enough that it can continue straight and level? If it does have to manuever, the targets are going to have to be even father apart.
Thanks
Jeff
=================================================
Username: Hoahao
Nickname: Old Friend
Posts: 278
Date: 7/23/02 15:41
Re: Stick Bombing Questions
Opps, I think I read your question wrong, JP.
=================================================
Username: James1978
Nickname: New Guy
Posts: 6
Date: 7/23/02 15:54
Re: Raid Frequency and Manpower
Thank Stuart. I can see where a small number of B-36s would go a long way given their bomb load and survivability . That being said, I'd still like to know what kind of numbers Convair could have churned out had the need and the resources been there.
Thanks.
James
=================================================
Username: Seer Stuart
Nickname: The Prince of Darkness
Posts: 632
Date: 7/23/02 23:25
Re: Stick Bombing Questions
Here, stick bombing takes on a bit of a different meaning. What would happen is that a raid would be planned with a number of targets in a roughly straight line and the B-36 would crank up to maximum speed and drop on each in turn. the reason for the jets was that the bomber wouldn't have to make the violent turns that the B-29s did.
=================================================
Username: Seer Stuart
Nickname: The Prince of Darkness
Posts: 633
Date: 7/23/02 23:32
Re: Informative discussion....!
the performance of the pre-jet engines versions of the B-36 (that became available only during the late '40ies) appears quite managable for late piston-engined and early jet-engined fighters
Appearances are deceptive; its not the performance of the fighter thats critical, its the performance of the system as a whole, the fighter plus the ground control.
What happens is that the fighters have to be put in a position such that they can intercept the bombers in the time envelope between the bomber arriving and the fighter's fuel running out.
That means that the fighter has to take off, claw its way up to the bomber's operational altitude, be steered to the bomber and shoot it down. That proved very hard to do; its not impossible (some RB-47s were shot down) but its not easy. Basically the ground control has to be able to guess exactly where and when the bomber is going to be and arrange for the fighter to be in the same place. Not easy.
=================================================
Username: Seer Stuart
Nickname: The Prince of Darkness
Posts: 634
Date: 7/23/02 23:34
Re: Raid Frequency and Manpower
The real answer is, how many would the US Government want? If they wanted them badly enough and were prepared to divert the effort, they could build them.
=================================================
Username: WarshipAdmin
Nickname: Greg
Posts: 266
Date: 7/24/02 0:28
One way to look at it
With the exception of the engines WW2 planes were not amazingly complicated (cue howls of anguish), so you could add up the total annual military aircraft production in tons, and divide that by the the weight of a B36, to get an idea of the potential rate of building. It would probably take six months to a year to convert the entire output of the aircraft industry to B36s.
Well now I've written that I'm not sure it's that easy - the UK certainly found it very hard to switch out of building the wrong equipment in favour of the good stuff, but so far as I am aware the US didn't suffer from that as much
Cheers
Greg Locock
=================================================
Username: Hoahao
Nickname: Old Friend
Posts: 279
Date: 7/24/02 1:11
Re: Stick Bombing Questions
The nitty gritty of opertions...
Scroll down
http://www.zianet.com/tmorris/b36.html
=================================================
Username: weirdo
Nickname: John Smith
Posts: 189
Date: 7/24/02 1:44
Machines
Building large aircraft requires the procurement of very specilized machines. When I think about building a B-36 vs a P-51, I don't think about material availability or whether or not the columns in the building are far enough apart, or the roof high enough, but I think about the gigantic mills that are required to machine the wing spars and other large, homogenus, and intricate pieces. I also think about how many of those machines are required to match a wartime production rate. That doesn't mention the forges required to make the blanks for the spars. The "mulitplicity" of machines and machining required in jumping from small-to-huge boggles the mind. I really appreciate the photo Hoaho led us to that shows the -29 parked next tot he -36, and the giant leap in the machines and processes involved to get there...then to think about converting x-number of factories to the -36...wow! The materials needed ain't much compared to all those chips of aluminum flying around those 100-foot-long milling machines.
BTW, have any of you ever seen photos of the Burbank Production Facility being [practically] built over the P-38 line? The P-38 line started outdoors under camo nets and ended up in a giant facility that's now extinct. BTW too, the crown jewel of LM Aeronautics is now the old Ft Worth line.
=================================================
Username: Seer Stuart
Nickname: The Prince of Darkness
Posts: 635
Date: 7/24/02 3:33
Re: Stick Bombing Questions
Notice this bit.
aircrew S-02 was assigned an upper-air sampling mission over the Siberian Sea
and northern Russia
Must have been an RB-36; there is a lot he isn't saying here.
By the way, the featherweight described was a Featherweight-I; there were two other standards. Featherweight-III had only its tail guns.
=================================================
Username: James1978
Nickname: New Guy
Posts: 7
Date: 7/24/02 3:57
Re: Stick Bombing Questions
Let me make sure I've got all of this.
1) The B-36 could carry 4 Mk-1 bombs.
2) The B-36 would have basically been invulnerable to German defences.
3) Unlike the USSR, we knew more or less exactly where targets in Germany were.
So given enough bombs, its possible that one bomb group with B-36s could have devestated German industry in a matter of a few days?
I don't mean to sound naive, but I was under the impression that a bomber only nuclear war in the old days would have been a multi-day or even multi-week affair.
Thanks.
James
=================================================
Username: K Newman
Nickname: Bubblehead Cop
Posts: 237
Date: 7/24/02 5:00
Re: High altitude fighters and jets
Sir Frank Whittle gets the credit for jet engines, but the initial development of radar dates back to the Naval Research Laboratory in Anacostia, MD in the 1920s. The Brits were the first to use radar in combat and developed the cavity magnatron, making microwave radar possible.
=================================================
Username: WarshipAdmin
Nickname: Greg
Posts: 268
Date: 7/24/02 6:00
Re: Machines
I know I'm oversimplifying but if you had to could you not replace the milled spars with built up ones? Just pop rivet them together like a Spitfire. Anyway, why does it take two years to build a milling machine?
Cheers
Greg Locock
=================================================
Username: Johan Lup
Nickname: New Guy
Posts: 10
Date: 7/24/02 7:13
Re: Informative discussion....! - interception
Stuart, I quite agree.
However, the size of the performance advantage of the fighter/interceptor compared to the bomber directly impacts the requirements on the GCI organization to make an interception likely.
The gist of my argument is that I dare doubt the assumed virtual immunity of the B-36 to the hypothetical Luftwaffe defences of post-1945.
By the way, you have hinted - in this discussion and others - at experiences of Cold War-era intrustions of Western recce assets (aircrafts, balloons) in WP airspace. In as far as security considerations (still!) permit, I'm sure more information or suggestions for other sources would be much appreciated by those on the board.
I could add the story of the joint SwAF/USAF ELINT DC-3 shot down in 1952 by the SovAF - following which a SAR PBY was also shot down!
=================================================
Username: David Newton
Nickname: The English Adminstrator
Posts: 1064
Date: 7/24/02 13:53
Re: High altitude fighters and jets
After we developed the cavity magnetron, America mass produced it, so it's really swings and roundabouts as to who got radar into a useful form for the military.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with mustard.
=================================================
Username: weirdo
Nickname: John Smith
Posts: 190
Date: 7/24/02 13:55
Re: Machines
"I know I'm oversimplifying but if you had to could you not replace the milled spars with built up ones? Just pop rivet them together like a Spitfire."
I'm not arguing, and I'm not a structures person. I'm probably being waaayyy to dramatic, too.
The Spit's spar was really riveted together? Wow (But then again, they could of all been bulit-up back then for all I know.). Maybe its web was stamped and the flange was riveted on top of it. I'd nearly bet that the web wasn't built up, but I'm willing to grant that the spar's web could have been stamped to save time...lots of time. To continue, assuming the web was stamped: Think of the jump required to go from a machine needed to stamp a 15-foot section--a guess of course and assuming the Spit's wing was joined in the middle or, we're already takling about a 30-foot stamping--compared to a 90-foot capacity stamping machine. Boggles the mind, doesn't it?
But, what if the Spit's web was made from thick sheet stock or thin plate, or even bulit-up from several pieces. Wouldn't you agree that a riveted span would weigh significantly more than a machined spar? I'd nearly guarantee it weighs more...much more. Now, think about how much an 18-foot-long wing will flex at maximum load compared to the flexure of a 100-foot-long wing with a similar wing loading. I'm gonna bet that a built-up, 100+ long wing spar is out of the question, but I might have to eat crow if I saw a picture of one.
"Anyway, why does it take two years to build a milling machine?"
I don't know that it does. I'm just speaking of what I've heard called the "multiplicity effect" Designers either have the option of building something within the capacity of the existing plant's machines, or to go beyond that capacity. The -29 was the big dog in 1943, and was presumably, but of course not necessarily, a product of the capacity of the largest machines at the time. If that's true, the machines for the very much larger -36 wouln't just have to be bought and set up--maybe impacting the -29 line or even requiring a new plant to be built--,but maybe requiring a new design too.
=================================================
Username: David Newton
Nickname: The English Adminstrator
Posts: 1065
Date: 7/24/02 13:55
Re: Stick Bombing Questions
Remember, Russia is a MUCH bigger target than Germany. That explains and lot, and combined with the intelligence difference probably covers the difference in time frames.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with mustard.
=================================================
Username: weirdo
Nickname: John Smith
Posts: 193
Date: 7/24/02 14:15
Re: High altitude fighters and jets
I forget what the American innovation was. It was one of those things that we today say "well, duh" about because it seems so simple by today's standards. I want to say that the Americans realized that a critical part could be made in 50-foot long sections as an extrusion, and then cut to the required length, instead of machining individual pieces. It was something like that.
The benefit of letting others look at something can't be overemphasized. That new, fresh mind often doesn't know that something can't be done, so, they do it.
=================================================
Username: Hoahao
Nickname: Old Friend
Posts: 281
Date: 7/24/02 14:27
Re: Machines
The B-29 was the "big dog" only in the sense that it was finally built. The US actually pursued multiple bomber designs simultanously. The original idea was that super bombers like the B-36 were for Europe, and they were planning on using the B-29 and others of it's class in development out of bases in China as well as the islands if they could get there fast enough. When, in '43, the Japanese started to push the Chinese back, there was renewed interest in the B-36 cause of the possible loss of the ability to base -29s in China. B-36 development was in fits and starts.
More extrapolation:
If the war ends in the Pacific in late 46, and there was a steady continued development of the B-36, you would probably see mass production of B-36s by 47. Reading up on the early strike methods leads to some interesting thoughts. Erly procedure was to fly to a load up point, then fly to a "jump off point", then fly to the target. I could see Icland being built up as the jump off point with sufficent runways and protected fuel bunkers. All of Iceland could be turned into a airbase making things pretty difficult if the Germans want to conduct attacks against it. The -36s show up, top off, and then take off for Germany; they would not be there for very long, relatively speaking.
If the war ends in the Pacific in 46, the Us invades North Africa in late 47, and has a base suitable for 36s by mid 48 easy. We have 58 a-bombs minimum, with about 9 coming on every month. If we decide to go with nukes only, you don't even need massive amounts of 36s. I could see 18 coming out of Iceland while 18 come out of N Africa, each with one bomb and heading for Europe for a night incursion. Kiss the Italian navy good by. You won't even have to use N Africa if you have the Azores.
"The shovel is brother to the gun." C. Sandburg
=================================================
Username: JPaulMartin
Nickname: Capitalist Pig
Posts: 20
Date: 7/24/02 14:52
Re: Stick Bombing Questions
Ok, I understand. I thought you meant they were going to drop 4 Mk1s as fast as they could release them.
Thanks
Jeff
=================================================
Username: K Newman
Nickname: Bubblehead Cop
Posts: 239
Date: 7/24/02 15:45
History of radar
Radar was in use prior to the invention of the magnetron, but wasn't nearly as useful. The lower frequencies were easily detectable by the Germans and the units didn't have very good resolution.
FYI, here's a brief history of radar's development:
1904: German engineer Christian Hulsmeyer obtained patents for a device that used reflected radio waves as a obstacle detector and navigation aid for ships. It apparently was never built.
1922: Marconi spoke of the same concept.
1922: Two scientists, Dr. A. Hoyt Taylor and Leo C. Young, working at the Naval Aircraft Radio Laboratory in Anacostia, noticed fluctuations in radio signals caused by ships passing between stations on opposite sides of the Potomac River.
1934: Dr. Robert M. Paige, an assistant to Leo C. Young, built a pulse signal device that determined the position of aircraft. That was the first radar unit.
1935: A few months after Paige built his device, Sir Robert Watson-Watt built a radar unit in the UK. His work was independent of the work done in the US.
1937: Radar first went to sea aboard USS
Leary (DD-158) .
Leary was also the first American ship to detect a U-boat by radar (November 19,1941).
1939: Multicavity magnetron invented by two British scientists at the University of Birmingham, J.T. Randall and H.A.H. Boot.
1940: American and British researchers teamed up to work on radar. At that time, the British revealed the magnetron to the Americans. Rapid development of radar was the result. 1940 was also the year that the British used radar with so much sucess during the Battle of Britain.
1941: The Royal Navy sucessfully used radar to track
Bismarck and
Prinz Eugen in fog in the Denmark Strait.
1945: At the end of World War Two, radar was made available for commercial use.
=================================================
Username: K Newman
Nickname: Bubblehead Cop
Posts: 240
Date: 7/24/02 15:54
Re: Informative discussion....! - interception
The US lost quite a few recon aircraft to the Soviets during the Cold War with numerous aircrew killed. Sadly, one of the nearly forgotten stories of the Cold War. Since they wanted to be that way, we should have splashed every single Bear that dipped into US airspace. And there were a lot of them, especially on their SIGINT runs between the Kola Peninsula and Cuba.
=================================================
Username: James1978
Nickname: New Guy
Posts: 8
Date: 7/24/02 20:39
Re: Time Frame and Targets
I understand that in Germany, the targets will be closer together and in known locations. That being the case, how many nukes could be dropped in a day? I don't mean #B-36s X 4 Mk-1s. I mean given the density of the target area (Germany), how many bombs could they have dropped per day before the amount of fallout and radiation started to interfere with follow-on raids? In the USSR, things were more spread out and their locations were not always known with great certainty, so it probably wouldn't have been an issue in a US v. USSR situation since it wold have been a protracted campaign anyhow.
I'm also wondering how hard the US would have hit Germany. Would they have dropped a few A-bombs then issued an ultimatum? Would they have gone all out to destroy Germany in a nuclear blitz? Would the US have gone after targets in Occupied Europe (France, Norway, etc.) and those of their allies (Romania, Italy, etc.)? I'm just trying to compare with the US strategy in the Cold War of nuking everyone in the Soviet sphere of influence .
Thanks.
James
=================================================
Username: David Newton
Nickname: The English Adminstrator
Posts: 1078
Date: 7/25/02 0:13
Re: Time Frame and Targets
Oh, you're getting into Stuart's expert area now. I'll leave it to him to explain nuclear targetting over Nazi Germany by B36s.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with mustard.
=================================================
Username: Tony Evans
Nickname: Citizen
Posts: 310
Date: 7/25/02 0:40
Re: Machines
Milled wing spars was a 50's fighter development. WW II era aircraft (which the B-36 was technologically) were built up from sheet metal and extrusions. Manufacturing and distributing the sheet metal forms for complex surfaces like the leading edges would have been a production bottleneck good for 6 months to a year. But the time could have been used to set up the rest of the lines and train staff for the new model.
=================================================
Username: Seer Stuart
Nickname: The Prince of Darkness
Posts: 637
Date: 7/25/02 2:54
Strategic scenario
How is this for a strategic scenario?
We're in 1947, the US has successfully tested a nuclear device (and managed to keep a lid on it). They've built up an arsenal of around 60 devices, all Mark 1s of average 10 kiloton yield (up a bit, down a bit, things weren't terribly precise back then). They have a production rate of around one Mark 1s per month with a single 15 kiloton Model 1561 every four month. Coming up is the 25 kiloton Mark 3 (one a month from mid-1947) and the 50 kiloton mark 4 (one a week from the start of 1948 ) . This is a somewhat faster production rate and reflects an acceptance of wartime engineering standarsd rather than peacetime. It means the devices shorter lives. By the way, Super (fusion device) is on the way.
Bomber force will be 500 B-36s, all jet equipped (the B-36s have priority for jets precisely because of the nuclear device). B-29s are there but mostly face the Pacific.
In Europe, the Germans occupy from the Urals to the Pyranees and from the UK to North Africa. They range into but do not hold the Sahara. In the east they have a
hell of a partisan warfare problem in the occupied territories. That requires a major force commitment. Western Europe is relatively peaceful. Spain is doing a balancing act - pro-German enough not to be invaded by Germany, not pro German enough to be pounded by the US.
At sea, the Germans aren't so lucky. The US Navy and what's left of the RN have swept the seas of the German fleet. The Atlantic is a US lake. The US carriers are pounding the Western edges and there isn't much the Germans can do about it. Of their submarines, only the Type XXIs can do anything useful and they are hunted mercilessly. The older subs have an at-sea lifetime of hours rather than days. There are no transatlantic convoys to sop up Allied resources so everything goes into an attack fleet.
In the air the German jets had a temporary transcendence in 1944/45 but thats fading fast. The P-80 and the new Grumman F9F are marginally inferior to the latest German jets but they are enormously greater in numbers. Both the allies and the Germans have a problem; there isn't enough jet fuel. This forces them to keep piston engined fighters in the inventory (historically correct by the way - that problem took until the late 1950s to solve - know you know why the ANG kept Mustangs so long). The US carriers are running in, grabbing local air superiority, smashing targets and the defenses then pulling back out to sea before the germans can concentrate to match them. The areas the Germans stripped to do that then get hit by another carrier raid. The Germans know the B-36 is coming and are trying to do something about it but they have problems. Their older piston-engined fighters are useless; they can't get up high enough and fast enough to intercept. They have specialized high altitude piston engined fighters but they are too lightly armed and the performance differential is too low. The jets have a better chance but they have problems all of their own. Oddly the German plane that is best suited to a B-36 interceptor is the He-219. It has the speed, altitude, firepower and endurance to be a threat. The Germans are building them again (despite its shortcomings) and they have replaced most of the older twin engined fighters. They're taking a beating from the carriers though.
The Germans have spotted something else. A stripped recon version of the B-36, the RB-36 has been making runs all over Germany. They've tried to intercept and failed. Whatever's going to happen is about to start. They've heard a codeword but don't know what it means. That codeword is "Dropshot".
Hows that for a base. If we can all live with that strategic situation, we'll go ahead and plan a nuclear war.
Edited by: Seer Stuart at: 7/25/02 2:30:09 am
=================================================
Username: Seer Stuart
Nickname: The Prince of Darkness
Posts: 639
Date: 7/25/02 3:35
Re: Stick Bombing Questions
The B-36 would have basically been invulnerable to German defences.
Nothing is invulnerable; I've done some calculations and some thinking; my guess is we would be looking at a B-36 attrition rate in daylight for conventional raids of around 3 percent. Putting that into perspective, it means a B-36 crew have a 50:50 chance of surviving a 25 mission tour of duty. Night-time, my guess is we're looking at an attrition rate on the low side of 0.5 percent giving the crews roughly an 85 percent chance of surviving a 25 mission tour of duty.
Given the way a nuclear raid would be planned, I'd give the bombers a VERY high chance of getting through. Also, the devices aboard would be salvage-fuzed.
=================================================
Username: Sea Skimmer
Nickname: Interstellar Warlord
Posts: 306
Date: 7/25/02 3:42
Re: Strategic scenario
That works, seems like enough time for the Germans to build what they need to reach the Urals. I gather this assumes that their guided antiaircraft missile projects never produced results or never existed, and they have not done something stupid like mass-produce a 170mm AAA?
What's the middle ease status, the coast of the gulf would seem to offer a few potential bases for raids on eastern targets.
=================================================
Username: James1978
Nickname: Regular
Posts: 11
Date: 7/25/02 3:51
Works for me
Regarding "Dropshot", I like your sense of history. My school library had a copy of "Dropshot" that I skimmed through a few times - very interesting reading.
Regarding German defences, how well developed would SAMs be by 1947 given the scenario.
Thanks.
James
=================================================
Username: James1978
Nickname: Regular
Posts: 12
Date: 7/25/02 3:57
Re: Salvage Fused?
Could you educate me as to what "salvage fused" means?
Thanks.
James
=================================================
Username: Hoahao
Nickname: Old Friend
Posts: 283
Date: 7/25/02 4:29
Re: Salvage Fused?
Salvaged fused = bomb goes off if the plane gets shot down; tough luck for the crew. Don't bother wearing your parachute!!
=================================================
Username: fltcpt
Nickname: Capitalist
Posts: 906
Date: 7/25/02 5:22
Re: Salvage Fused?
To prevent the bomb from falling into enemy hands the device will self destruct when if the aircraft is downed for any reason.
=================================================
Username: declan64
Nickname: Old Friend
Posts: 112
Date: 7/25/02 6:18
Re: Salvage Fused?
Would that have been a fission explosion , or just the conventional exciters cooking off, in regards to the salvage fuse.
Declan
=================================================
Username: SJMurray
Nickname: Tex
Posts: 94
Date: 7/25/02 6:22
Dropshot?
What book is this? A search on amazon.com turned up an out of print book on US strategy in a nuclear war with USSR.
SM
=================================================
Username: Hoahao
Nickname: Old Friend
Posts: 284
Date: 7/25/02 11:20
Re: Salvage Fused?
The whole works Declan. The idea is that if the plane goes down the bomb goes off, probably by a barometric device, in order to try to "salvage" something out of the loss by detonation.
=================================================
Username: edgeplay cgo
Nickname: Old Friend
Posts: 131
Date: 7/25/02 14:25
Re: Stick Bombing Questions
Besides the aerodynamic problems with close releases, there are physical ones. Nukes detonated too close to each other, in time and space, are de-rated. IIRC it is because of the neutron pulse released by the first bomb. The details are probably classified, but the effect is significant.
- Dennis
=================================================
Username: weirdo
Nickname: John Smith
Posts: 196
Date: 7/25/02 15:02
What do the recon missions tell us?
What if the Germans' cities are well lit at night? I'd test the waters and send about 60 B-36s on a mission, each more or less alone and autonomous, to see how they react...don't drop any bombs, just make it look like a large recon mission that just happens to also secretly be practice runs for the atomic mission. Depending on losses, I'd do this as frequently as possible hoping the Germans become complacent and don't bother turning out the lights. If they didn't turn out the lights after a few missions, send as many bombers as we have A-bombs for and/or as many as can be sent without them nuking each other. I'm just saying that the first strike should be as massive as possible. I think the little
guy is applicable in this paragraph. Despite production schedules for either the bombs or the bombers, we've waited to have enough capacity of both for this mission. No onesy-twosy and demand peace...right? We buss'em up side'ey head so that the next recon missions observe their remaining war machines--intentially set on fire--, and neatly arranged in letters that spell "we surrender..." in seven languages.
What if the recon/spy missions reveal that GB's and French industrial capacity has been heavily turned toward war production? Would we nuke our friends? How much impact would fighters produced and based in GB have to have to get us to nuke GB
BTW, I think if the Germans had any sense of what's going on, they'd quickly develope fighters with long loiter times as well as high-altitude capability. The Germans didn't have a long range fighter because they never needed one in the reality of WWII. They ran out of ammo well before they ran out of fuel, and they were highly successful at intercepting bombers in daylight. But, isn't it interesting how bombers operating randomly, alone, at night, and each carrying 200 bombers worth of destructive power throws a wrench in their defensive works?
Nukes are cool, especially when the enemy ain't got none.
=================================================
Username: James1978
Nickname: Regular
Posts: 13
Date: 7/25/02 22:12
Re: Dropshot?
OK, IIRC, "Dropshot" was one of the original JCS warplans in the late 40s/early 50s in the event that the USSR went on the warpath and conquered Western Europe. It listed the number of bomber and fighter groups, ground divisions, carriers, etc. that the JCS projected would be needed to push the Soviets back and where they would be used. It probably gives us a good idea of how the US would have fought Germany under these circumstances.
Thanks.
James
=================================================
Username: Seer Stuart
Nickname: The Prince of Darkness
Posts: 641
Date: 7/25/02 22:35
Re: Strategic scenario
The "biggest and best" anti-aircraft gun was the KS-130 the Soviets deployed in the late 1950s. It was a radar guided 130 millimeter and the B-36 was just within its engagement envelope. The US had a similar gun, a 120 millimeter (there were some of those guarding the locks at Sault Ste Marie - the last conventional AA guns in the USA). Neither these nore the German 127 were really successful; too big, too heavy. The German AA missiles were triumphs of optimism over reality. They were very easy to jam; one of the unspoken things about the B-36 was that it had very good (for the era) ECM equipment.
German AAA could make life hellish for anybody coming in at 20,000 - 25,000 feet. For a B-36 at 37,500 - 45,000, its almost inconsequential.
As for the Middle East, I'm assuming that the Mediterranean Littoral is in German hands but nowhere much deeper than hat. ie Palestine is in German occupation but not Jordan or Iraq.
=================================================
Username: Seer Stuart
Nickname: The Prince of Darkness
Posts: 642
Date: 7/25/02 22:41
Re: Dropshot?
Its a basis to work from. I'm assuming that the US objective is to deal a killing blow at Germany and to isolate the UK so that it can be invaded and liberated. So, we can imagine a sudden and very violent blow at Germany. Say, 20 B-36 Hometowns each with two Mark One devices aimed at 40 key targets in Germany. These would be ones that crippled Germany's transportation and fuel supplies as well as inflicting massive destruction on the city infrastructure. Conventional B-36 strikes would hit airfields etc. Five B-36 Hometowns (also with two Mark one devices each) would hit German concentrations in the UK and France (U-boat bases are obvious targets) to eliminate them. These would be backed up by mass carrier blows aimed at the defenses. Then followed up by an invasion of the UK. The combination of invasion and the crippling nuclear strike should put Germany out of the war.
=================================================
Username: Hoahao
Nickname: Old Friend
Posts: 285
Date: 7/25/02 22:56
Re: Dropshot?
Should we hit "Wolf's lair" on the second strike in hopes that Hitler beat feet out of Berlin after the first wave??
=================================================
Username: James1978
Nickname: Regular
Posts: 15
Date: 7/26/02 1:34
Re: AAA, AAMs, and SAMs
So the B-36s should suffer few losses from SAMs and big AAA. OK. How would a 1947 German AAM perform in such an interception scenario?
Thanks.
James
=================================================
Username: Sea Skimmer
Nickname: Interstellar Warlord
Posts: 311
Date: 7/26/02 1:35
Re: Strategic scenario
I'm aware of the KS-30, but I have read that Japan deployed seven 150mm weapons near the very end of the war. But I have no performance data beyond that fact that after several went to Tokyo a couple B-29s went down to Flak on the next raid.
=================================================
Username: PatPickering
Nickname: Old Friend
Posts: 90
Date: 7/26/02 1:36
Re: Dropshot?
I would certainly give that order. Would probably see Nurnburg and Munich go as well.
=================================================
Username: Sea Skimmer
Nickname: Interstellar Warlord
Posts: 312
Date: 7/26/02 1:41
Re: Dropshot?
The idea of submarine pens dated to WW1, if the Germans had built some of there historical pens, would the Atomic weapons available be able to crack them, or would that planned 43,000 pound bomb have to be built to ensure a killing blow with one mission?
Though IIRC, the RAF gave up on giant bombs for pen busting and cracked even the Brest pens with a rocket equipped 4000-pounder.
=================================================
Username: ATMahan
Nickname: Future Historian
Posts: 176
Date: 7/26/02 5:14
Are you sure, Skimmer?
I've read in
The Dam Busters that 617 did a real number on the pens using "Tallboys" (the 6-ton suckers), rather than rocket-assisted bombs. I'll have to go back and check, though.
=================================================
Username: Theodore
Nickname: Resident Vexillologist
Posts: 618
Date: 7/26/02 5:23
Re: Dropshot?
If the U-boats are being killed as quickly as they're being sent to sea, why bother nuking their pens? I also have to wonder if we'd drop nukes on occupied cities. We bombed occupied cities, but we didn't do it area-style.
=================================================
Username: fltcpt
Nickname: Capitalist
Posts: 911
Date: 7/26/02 5:32
Re: Dropshot?
By bombing the U boat pens and destroying the boats inside as well as the infrastructure you free up significant sub hunting resources for escort or other duties. These could be diverted from sub hunting to escorting an invasion convoy or the logistic train of the carriers.
As far as area bombing cities are concerned, Dresden, Tokyo, and Hamburg springs to mind. Unquestionablely the tactics should be considered area bombings of cities.
The use of nuclear devices on Nazi population centers would have had serious considerations and likely would have happened.
=================================================
Username: Theodore
Nickname: Resident Vexillologist
Posts: 619
Date: 7/26/02 5:41
Re: Dropshot?
Hitting the pens still seems like a waste of perfectly good nukes. If you wipe out the construction yards, the pens will soon be empty anyway.
Regarding area bombing, I wasn't talking about enemy cities. Stuart implied that we'd hit targets in occupied cities (like London or Paris) with nukes - I question that. Obviously we'd nuke population centers in Germany proper.
=================================================
Username: K Newman
Nickname: Bubblehead Cop
Posts: 245
Date: 7/26/02 5:41
This is an interesting conversation, but....
....do you guys realize what it is that you're talking about? Sure, the Germans were the enemy and they were responsible for millions of dead, but plastering Germany with nukes is a bit much. How about one? Or maybe two? Just to let them know that they are screwed if they don't surrender. It took only two to bring down the fanatical Japanese, I doubt the Germans would continue on after getting say, Berlin and Dresden, wiped off the map.
Maybe I'm being overly sensitive, but I used to ride herd on a bunch of nukes. I can't speak for the other guys on my crew, but I found the experience of being on the firing end of a bunch of SLBMs quite sobering. There was a lot of loose talk about nuking Afghanistan or wherever after 9-11, I find that disturbing. Those things should be used as a last resort after all other means have failed.
=================================================
Username: fltcpt
Nickname: Capitalist
Posts: 913
Date: 7/26/02 6:04
Re: Dropshot?
I believe Stuart mentioned troop concentrations in occupied countries. As such I don't believe that we would nuke London, Paris or any other city in the occupied countries. However troop concentrations away from major population centers in the occupied countries could be nuked. Such as military bases, air fields and training facilities.
=================================================
Username: James1978
Nickname: Regular
Posts: 16
Date: 7/26/02 6:07
Re: This is an interesting conversation, but....
I think we have to put this scenario in its proper context. We're talking about Germany and its allies more or less in total control of Europe and all its resources. The only thing really bothering them is USN carrier raids attacking the peripheries. Without Britian as a base, we're looking at either invading Nirth Africa to establish a base or trying to go directly into Europe. Even the US in this scenario may be hard pressed to mount such a logistical effort. A conventional attack would make the plan for Downfall look easy IMO.
On your second point, I completely agree. The indiscriminate use of nuclear weapons in a fit of rage is not generally a good idea.
Thnaks.
James
=================================================
Username: James1978
Nickname: Regular
Posts: 17
Date: 7/26/02 6:26
Re: Sub Pens
I know that the RAF was able to hit sub pens with their big bombs. What altitude were these raids conducted from? I'm wondering if an A-bomb dropped from a B-36 would be accurate enough to kill a point target like a sub pen. Given how well the pens seemed to hold up, would a near miss by an A-bomb be enough to take it out?
Thanks.
James
=================================================
Username: Anthony G
Nickname: Regular
Posts: 34
Date: 7/26/02 6:59
Consider the following questions ...
... and you may have an acceptable answer.
How many B-52's were shot down during Linebacker I and Linebacker II by flak of any sort?
Ask yourself the same question regarding B-52's in ODS.
Basically flak hasn't been effective much over 20,000 feet let alone 30k feet.
There's no need to fear! Underdog is here!
=================================================
Username: Theodore
Nickname: Resident Vexillologist
Posts: 620
Date: 7/26/02 7:12
Re: This is an interesting conversation, but....
I have no qualms at all about the prospect of giving Nazi Germany a terminal dose of instant sunrise. If ever a country deserved it, it was the Third Reich.
Bringing down Japan took a lot more than just the two nukes. They were only the straw that broke the camel's back - they didn't do it alone. Nor do I think Japan had a monopoly on fanatical resistance; look at what it took to defeat Germany historically.
Consider, also, that dropping the bomb saved more lives than it took. The same might well apply to a theoretical German scenario.
=================================================
Username: Theodore
Nickname: Resident Vexillologist
Posts: 621
Date: 7/26/02 7:15
Re: Dropshot?
The problem is that important targets tend to be surrounded by civilians. The ones that aren't aren't important enough to be nuked, at least in this scenario.
=================================================
Username: Hoahao
Nickname: Old Friend
Posts: 286
Date: 7/26/02 12:36
Re: This is an interesting conversation, but....
I'm not sure 1 or 2 would do it in a controlled political enviroment like Nazi Germany. Please bear in mind that we Did bomb Dresden and Hamburg and the war did not end. The US had to grind the Imperial Japanese navy into scrap as well as terror bomb Japan's cities before we used both weapons historically, and even then, there were a number of attempted coups to prevent the surrender after we dropped the SECOND bomb.
You have to observe how cities are built. Are European cities built with industrial sections as well as cities which are more industrial as opposed to others?? In many cities in the US you will find the industrial sections located down wind of the rest of the city. If the prevailing wind is from the northeast, the industrial section will be locate south west. Odds are, we would have to hit the industrial sections, and as we are using 10-20 kiloton devices, we would, on the margin, limit civilian losses.
In our little scenario, I think that you will need to hit occupied Europe hard with the B-36s conventionally as well as nuclear for 3-6 months, and then invade Europe proper with a 30-40 division army. I think you could get away with such a small army if you hit German concentrations with both conventional and a-bombs in tactical situations. Hopefully, the initial drops have crippled manufacturing, oil production and transport nets, and 3-6 months into the air campaign, B-36s are roaming at will over occupied Europe and taking out smaller plant and reconstruction attempts.
Bare in mind that these are Nazis who are operating death camps for Jews and Gypsies, and may by now be conducting ethnic cleansing via genicide in occupied Russia for "Lebenstrom" (sp??).
=================================================
Username: Dave AAA
Nickname: Regular
Posts: 27
Date: 7/26/02 17:54
Re: Civilians
Minimizing German civilian casualties was not an issue for the RAF by b1940 and the USAAF by 1944. Forty Hamburgs or Dresdens would not be much of a moral issue.
Another reasson why only two bombs were drropped on Japan was, IIRC, that they only had two or three at the time.
=================================================
Username: Theodore
Nickname: Resident Vexillologist
Posts: 624
Date: 7/26/02 18:25
Re: Civilians
Concur, there would be little worry about killing German civilians. But there would be a great deal of worry about killing, say, British civilians.
=================================================
Username: KingSargent
Nickname: Don't Tread On Me
Posts: 774
Date: 7/26/02 19:43
OK, we know it's horrible.
But in the 1940s, people
didn't know it was horrible. Remember the Congresscritters sitting in rows on Navy decks to watch the Bikini tests, fully protected by shirtsleeves and sunglasses?
I would bet that there be less reluctance to use the incomprehensible nukes than there was to use mass fire-bombing. Fire-bombing did more damage anyway, it just took more planes.
As for sub pens, I can't think of a place I'd rather be if a nuke was to be dropped on my head.
Theodore's comment, "Hitting the pens still seems like a waste of perfectly good nukes. If you wipe out the construction yards, the pens will soon be empty anyway." seems very apt.
Another tactic: I wouldn't try to crack them, I'd drop a delayed-action nuke in the harbor. When it goes off, any pen with its doors open will be devastated inside and all the subs will be smashed against the inside wall. Any pen with its doors closed isn't going to be opening them for a while.
God, Guts, and Paranoia made America great.
=================================================
Username: Sea Skimmer
Nickname: Interstellar Warlord
Posts: 314
Date: 7/26/02 20:53
Re: Are you sure, Skimmer?
Quite sure. I have two books in front of me, which confirmed this, one by Ian Hogg.
You have to remember, not all pens were the same, some had up to three times the protection of others. 12,000 pounders did destroy some, but not all.
The Brest pens were the ones that took special bombs to break. They had thicker roofs to start with, plus an additional elevated buster slab. There was little standardization when it came to them.
=================================================
Username: ATMahan
Nickname: Future Historian
Posts: 177
Date: 7/27/02 18:13
Fair enough
Who am I to question the redoubtable Ian Hogg?
=================================================
Username: Seer Stuart
Nickname: The Prince of Darkness
Posts: 645
Date: 7/27/02 19:31
Sunrise Over The Rhine
When I started thinking about this one, the primary problmen I saw is that we are dealing with a Germany that is totally infused with over-confidence. they are overlords of the whole of Europe (excluding Spain and Switzerland), they've had a string of victories unparallelled in modern history - at least since Napoleon and the Wehrmacht had triumphed where the Grand Armee failed. They've had no real defeat and their home front hsas hardly been dented (except by a few fitful British bombing raids prior to 1940).
In contrast, by 1945 Japan had already been bombed and burned flat, her fleet had been sunk, her armies defeated and her air forces shot from the sky. The country was starving and had massive casualties. Over their heads the US aircraft went where and when they pleased. It took two atomic initiations, a Russian invasion and imminent starvation to bring about surrender - yet even then there was a substantial proportion of the armed forces who wished to continue the fight.
So to knock Germany out of the war, we need a blow of stunning force. The nuclear attack on its own - hideously destructive though it would be - won't do it on ots own. It needs the nuclear assault, the invasion of the UK and a massive conventional attack in combination. The horrible thing is I'm not sure the attack plan outlined will do it; its possible the Germans could keep going. In that case, we have a prolonged nuclear campaign using devices as they are produced.
Thats why the plan was devised to the parts are independent. If the nuclear assault on Germany succeeds, fine, everybody sighs with relief. However, the nuclear and conventional air assault aimed at isolating the UK battlefield is independent of that. The actual invasion is seperate again. Any of the three can work and if all three do work we've won. But failure in two doesn't affect the success of the third.
=================================================
Username: David Newton
Nickname: The English Adminstrator
Posts: 1093
Date: 7/27/02 19:34
Re: Sunrise Over The Rhine
Stu, you've neglected to remember Sweden, they weren't invaded, and if Spain has not been invaded, it is unlikely that Portugal would have been either.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with mustard.
=================================================
Username: Seer Stuart
Nickname: The Prince of Darkness
Posts: 646
Date: 7/27/02 19:41
Re: Sunrise Over The Rhine
You're right of course, Portugal is protected by Spain. Sweden, I suspect, is likely to do a Spain; do a balancing act between the axis and allies to stay independent. If it fails, I'd suggest the lesson from the German Army would be abrupt and rather final.
But the key point is though that Germany hasn't been defeated; its had strings of victories at a reasonable cost. That give sthem great resilence when things go sour. They have to go sour very badly very fast to overcome that. The worst thing that could happen would be a Vietnam style slow increment of force that allows the Germans to become accustomed to each level of pain before moving up to the next.
=================================================
Username: Theodore
Nickname: Resident Vexillologist
Posts: 625
Date: 7/27/02 20:49
Re: Sunrise Over The Rhine
So we've got about sixty devices and we want to make a present of them to Germany. Do we do it all in one night or spread it over multiple nights? What exactly are the targets?
=================================================
Username: fltcpt
Nickname: Capitalist
Posts: 917
Date: 7/27/02 21:23
Re: Sunrise Over The Rhine
IMO the target list would include Berlin, Hamburg, Keil, Dusseldorf, Frankfurt, Munich, Bremen, Dresden. Industrial targets of Schweinfurt, Wiener-Neustadt, also oil production facilities and rail transportation hubs. Larger German airfields and military bases would also be targeted, including training bases, and storage facilites for aircraft and armor. Consideration should be given for attacks against the submarine pens in Germany and France, with the possiblity of delayed underwater explosions near the sub pens and inside the harbor.
Conventional bombing would attack transportation hubs and oil production facilities outside of Germany.
The attacks should take place during a limited time period, likely within one week of each another. With the initial attacks being military bases and transportation hubs, however Berlin should be targeted in the first attack for psychological effects.
=================================================
Username: MicaelJ
Nickname: Old Friend
Posts: 114
Date: 7/27/02 22:17
Re: Sunrise Over The Rhine
With regards to the invasion of Sweden.
Actually, it would most likely take quite a lot to provoke a German invasion of Sweden, I'll lay out why for you.
1. The mining infrastructure to the north.
It has often been mentioned as a main reason for why Germany would not invade Sweden, if they did it would be destroyed by allied bombers and Germany really, really needed that ore.
A lesser known fact is that the mining ifrastructure was rigged for destruction by Sweden in case of invasion and had made that clear to Germany so they would know that invasion meant certain loss of their primary iron ore source.
2. Hitler's mythology - The Aryan cradle
According to Hitler and the other nazi philosophers the Aryan race originated in Mlardalen (the Mlar Valley) in Sweden, just west of Stockholm.
Building on this he (Hitler) concluded that Swedes must be better Aryans than Germans and thus better soldiers (excluding himself naturally).
This in turn lead to an unwillingness on his part to engage in military actions against Sweden believing that it meant possible defeat.
3. Donitz's fear of the Sverige-class ships
Donitz housed considerable missgivings over engaging a Swedish fleet consisting of one or more Sverige-class ships with anything less than a capital ship.
Indeed, he had a standing order to this effect.
This had a number of reasons behind it, the primary one beeing that he felt that smaller ships than the capital ones had insufficient armor to take a beating from the Sverige-class, and seeing that the three of them for the most part appeared together when at see emphasized those missgivings.
4. General concern over the RSwN and the Coastal Artillery
While it was taken for granted that the Kreigsmarine could defeat the RSwN and land troops, there were concerns over how much they would lose doing so.
In 1944 the RSwN consisted of:
7 coastal defence ships (=panserschiffe)
2 cruisers
15 destroyers
33 torpedo boats
26 submarines
44 patrol boats
an assortment of minelayers/mineseepers
The coastal artillery had practically littered the coastline with fortifications.
Seeing this there were fears from the German side that the losses would be fairly high so they were cautious.
5. Concerns over meeting the Swedish army in forested terrain
The Wehrmacht was quite convinced that meeting the Swedish army in open terrain where armor could be used fully would in essence be a victory parade for them, rightly so seeing how weak the Swedish army's armored branch were at the time.
However, in forested terrain the situation were different.
The Swedish army at the time consisted primarily of infantry, infantry and more infantry which is optimal for dense forested terrain of the kind most common in Sweden.
That the percantage of anti-tank guns were higher in the Swedish army than pretty much any other army, per equivalent unit of course, didn't make things much better for the Germans.
That the higher ratio per unit were also true for anti-aircraft guns made life harder for the Luftwaffe, that and the fact that it is reletively easy to conceal troops in forested terrain.
Finally the Swedish army were better trained for this kind of fighting due to natural reasons.
Conclusion
Right or wrong the Germans housed many concerns that an invasion of Sweden would be hazardous, hence I believe that such a decision would only be made after direct hostilities from Sweden or close to direct hostilities.
If we assume that they indeed invades points 3, 4 and 5 above suggests that they wouldn't have a picnic doing so, so to speak.
That and the fact that they would have been unable to launch a surprise attack.
A Swedish mathematician had earlier cracked the German G-writer (?), the predecessor to Enigma.
Thanks to fact that the German diplomatic corps still used it Sweden was able to obtain large amounts of classified information.
All diplomatic telegram traffic to and from Norway went through a landline through Sweden that was tapped, Operation Barbarossa were one of the things learned of before coming true.
Seeing that virtually all German invasion plans of Sweden after the war turned out to invlove the forces in Norway rather extensively it can be assumed that Sweden would have learnt about an invasion beforehand through the telegram traffic and have time to prepare.
Well, this became slightly longer than I thought.
Gentes Scitote vicine sive remotae quod clareat Suecia plebeque militia
http://go.ezboard.com/btheglobalpolitic ... itaryforum
The World of Politics
=================================================
Username: Sea Skimmer
Nickname: Interstellar Warlord
Posts: 319
Date: 7/28/02 0:30
Re: Sunrise Over The Rhine
1. The mining infrastructure to the north.
It has often been mentioned as a main reason for why Germany would not invade Sweden, if they did it would be destroyed by allied bombers and Germany really, really needed that ore.
A lesser known fact is that the mining ifrastructure was rigged for destruction by Sweden in case of invasion and had made that clear to Germany so they would know that invasion meant certain loss of their primary iron ore source.
There's a limit to have much damage you can do to open pit mines, and since ore was shipped out, there aren't any smelters to blow. Also, were theorizing that Germany has taken a good chunk of Russia and most of Europe. Prewar Sweden supplied about 50% of Germanys ore, but now they have fields from France, the UK and Russia to draw on.
That percentage could easily be low enough that they can live through the time needed to rebuild. In the real WW2, they could not.
No comment on number 2, not my area
3. Donitz's fear of the Sverige-class ships
Donitz housed considerable missgivings over engaging a Swedish fleet consisting of one or more Sverige-class ships with anything less than a capital ship.
Indeed, he had a standing order to this effect.
This had a number of reasons behind it, the primary one beeing that he felt that smaller ships than the capital ones had insufficient armor to take a beating from the Sverige-class, and seeing that the three of them for the most part appeared together when at see emphasized those missgivings.
Yes, but the Germans could draw on all heavy units they had left, surface raiders wont be in use anymore by the time any invasion comes off. Even if they wont engage a Sverige with less then a Sharnhorst, they likely would have enough capital units to take care of them. Though it depends what stage the war is in.
Course, I dont think the Sveriges would last to long under air attack, they might simply be ignored and constantly bombed into submission. They can offer protection to a few fixed points, but if the Germans dont opt for a single knockout blow that takes in nation in three days, then the temporary immunity of a few points wont matter.
4. General concern over the RSwN and the Coastal Artillery
While it was taken for granted that the Kreigsmarine could defeat the RSwN and land troops, there were concerns over how much they would lose doing so.
In 1944 the RSwN consisted of:
7 coastal defence ships (=panserschiffe)
2 cruisers
15 destroyers
33 torpedo boats
26 submarines
44 patrol boats
an assortment of minelayers/mineseepers
The coastal artillery had practically littered the coastline with fortifications.
Seeing this there were fears from the German side that the losses would be fairly high so they were cautious.
But none of that will save Sweden from an overland invasion, and while subs and light forces would harrass the German supply to Norway, I doubt they could stop it. The North Sea is pretty well shielded by a occupied UK so they can run convoys well out to sea rather then hug the coast.
5. Concerns over meeting the Swedish army in forested terrain
The Wehrmacht was quite convinced that meeting the Swedish army in open terrain where armor could be used fully would in essence be a victory parade for them, rightly so seeing how weak the Swedish army's armored branch were at the time.
However, in forested terrain the situation were different.
The Swedish army at the time consisted primarily of infantry, infantry and more infantry which is optimal for dense forested terrain of the kind most common in Sweden.
That the percantage of anti-tank guns were higher in the Swedish army than pretty much any other army, per equivalent unit of course, didn't make things much better for the Germans.
That the higher ratio per unit were also true for anti-aircraft guns made life harder for the Luftwaffe, that and the fact that it is reletively easy to conceal troops in forested terrain.
Finally the Swedish army were better trained for this kind of fighting due to natural reasons.
Perhaps, though the Germans had quite a few mountain warfare units that did well in poor terrain. Ant tank guns dont help a huge amount in the forest; tanks are not really an issue anyway. Lots of AAA helps, but ammunition wont last forever, and the Germans had plenty of heavy artillery.
In the end, if deterrence fails, Sweden can't hold. Unless they are heavily engaged on another land front, the Germans can simply pour in too many resources and defeat the defenders by attrition. I believe the scenario assumes Russia is basically crushed and the US ground forces and shipping are quite busy in the Pacific. So such forces are likely on hand.
So the question basically spirals down to, does Sweden have enough of a deterrent? I would say they have enough if the Germans want a very quick victory, but that if they can accept a campaign lasting months they will attack.
And I think they could and would accept and follow through.
=================================================
Username: Theodore
Nickname: Resident Vexillologist
Posts: 626
Date: 7/28/02 0:53
Re: Sunrise Over The Rhine
I don't like the idea of hitting tactical targets (such as airfields and sub pens) with the scarce supply of nuclear weapons. I'd rather lay them all on strategic targets. With help from the US Strategic Bombing Survey:
http://www.angelfire.com/super/ussbs/
I have compiled a list of forty targets to be struck in the initial wave, allowing a 50% surplus for targets which may require multiple devices, for losses, and for targets I may have omitted. I have also not included any targets in occupied territories (though some in Austria and Romania are listed.) If I had, Prague would make the list on account of the Skoda works there. Nor have I included rail targets, lacking adequate information on the Transportation Plan. The order of listing does not imply any particular priority.
1. Schweinfurt (ball-bearing plant.)
2. Ploesti (oil.)
3. Leuna (synthetic oil, chemicals.)
4. Gelsenskirchen (coking.)
5. Dortmund (coking, iron, steel, synthetic oil, ordnance, canal.)
6. Hamborn (coking, iron, steel.)
7. Oberhausen (coking, iron, steel, synthetic oil.)
8. Gladbeck (coking, synthetic oil.)
9. Rauxel (coking, synthetic oil.)
10. Aachen (coking.)
11. Brandenburg (Opel vehicle plant.)
12. Cologne (Ford vehicle plant.)
13. Stuttgart (Daimler-Benz vehicle plant.)
14. Chemnitz (Auto Union vehicle plant.)
15. Russelsheim (Opel vehicle plant.)
16. Stuttgart (Daimler-Benz vehicle plant.)
17. Friederichshaven (Maybach tank & aircraft engine plant, Zahnradfabrik tank transmission plant.)
18. Berlin (Nordbau tank engine plant, political.)
19. Essen (Krupp ordnance plant.)
20. Magdeburg-Buckau (Krupp ordnance plant, synthetic oil.)
21. Bochum (steel, ordnance.)
22. Kassel (locomotives, vehicles, aircraft.)
23. Dusseldorf (Rheinmetall steel & ordnance plant.)
24. Hannover (locomotives, vehicles, ordnance, radar, oil, rubber.)
25. Hamburg (oil, shipping.)
26. Vienna (oil.)
27. Wien (oil.)
28. Misburg (oil.)
29. Poelitz (synthetic oil.)
30. Ludwigshafen (IG Farben chemical plant, oil, synthetic rubber.)
31. Castrop-Rauxel (chemicals.)
32. Augsberg (aircraft.)
33. Regensburg (aircraft.)
34. Frankfurt (industrial.)
35. Leipzig (industrial.)
36. Bremen (shipping, aircraft.)
37. Wilhelmshaven (shipping.)
38. Vegesack (shipping.)
39. Munich (industrial, political.)
40. Kiel (shipping.)
=================================================
Username: Wijnand vd Beek
Nickname: Old Friend
Posts: 76
Date: 7/28/02 12:41
Re: Sunrise Over The Rhine
26. Vienna (oil.)
27. Wien (oil.)
=================================================
Username: Seer Stuart
Nickname: The Prince of Darkness
Posts: 647
Date: 7/28/02 16:58
Re: Sunrise Over The Rhine
We can replace one of the Viennas with Berlin; that has to be the priority target for almost every reason one can think of (in fact we're assuming most of the bombing is with 10 kiloton Mark Ones, if we have one or more 15 kiloton Model 1561 available, they would be well placed on Berlin). The purpose of this strike isn't just destruction although thats a very important part of it. Its disruption - to so snarl Germany up with damage and with chaos caused by communications failures and leadership annihilation that the country can't react in an organized manner to an assault.
By the way re the Sverige class. Two words. Dive Bombers. Its a gigantic stretch to assume that a small group of coast defense ships have any major effect on policy. My guess would be if they were that important, they'd be bombed in harbor right at the start of the attack.
=================================================
Username: MicaelJ
Nickname: Old Friend
Posts: 115
Date: 7/28/02 22:23
Re: Sunrise Over The Rhine
1. Well, no there isn't really any limit. If the Germans wanted them opened again they would have to be rebuilt from scratch.
3. Yes, they would be able to take care of them but it could get pretty tricky.
The tactic favored by the RSwN was to operated to close to the archipelagic enviroments so that the battleline could quickly retreat into it where no heavy enemy units could pursue.
With regards to air assault it is possible but lessons had been learned from Pearl Harbor so to say, slightly tricky as well.
However, I doubt that Donitz would accept to lose face by having Luftwaffe assets sink them as he had sent out more than one formal order warning for them, I think he would oush for a Kriegsmarine operation.
4. Agreed, they are naturally of little use preventing an invasion from Norway. But by pushing Germany's effort in that direction something has been gained anyway, there are only 2-3 areas along the Swedish-Norweigan border where large scale troop movements are possible through.
East of Oslo, east of Trondheim and possibly far to the north. That would mean the frontline is significantly cut favoring Sweden as they have less forces available.
The Wehrmacht can get through but not without losses.
Of course, everything is based on, as you say, that Germany doesn't commit everything they've got.
Naturally they would win in the end if they really wanted to, but why risk potentially heavy losses when they get almost the same result without military action?
That's what I mean by that they would not launch an invasion only over a smaller quarrel (unless Hitler has gotten another "brilliant" idea of course).
But hey, with any luck Hitler screws up the invasion by taking charge personally and Sweden could win.
Gentes Scitote vicine sive remotae quod clareat Suecia plebeque militia
http://go.ezboard.com/btheglobalpolitic ... itaryforum
The World of Politics
=================================================
Username: MicaelJ
Nickname: Old Friend
Posts: 116
Date: 7/28/02 22:34
Re: Sunrise Over The Rhine
They did, that is to say, they had a major impact on Dnitz's tactical thinking in the real WWII.
As he had a fairly favorable position with the fuhrer I suspect that serious consideration would have been given to this in invasion plans.
As I said in my reply to sea Skimmer I doubt Donitz would let the Luftwaffe in on the fun and to my knowledge the Kreigsmarine did not have dive bombers.
If an air attack is executed I expect it to be carried out with Kreigsmarine assets.
However, it would not be entirely easy, the security precautions at the naval bases had been significantly upgraded post-Pearl Harbor and the attacking planes would face opposition.
At sea, or rather close to the archipelagos, it would not be a walk in the park either, for their size they carried a good AA system.
They also had a small AA cruiser as constant escort and several destroyers were also tasked as AA escorts, in an almost Nimitz-like pattern actually.
That and I have seen it mentioned that while moving they were difficult to hit due to their small size, like a light cruiser. The RSwAF conducted trials with the Saab B17 dive bomber (similar to the Stuka) and it was noted that they indeed were difficult to hit.
Naturally it could be done but not quite as easily as you suggest.
In either way they would have tied up a lot of assets before getting sunk.
Gentes Scitote vicine sive remotae quod clareat Suecia plebeque militia
http://go.ezboard.com/btheglobalpolitic ... itaryforum
The World of Politics
=================================================
Username: Sea Skimmer
Nickname: Interstellar Warlord
Posts: 326
Date: 7/29/02 0:49
Re: Sunrise Over The Rhine
Donitz would push for a naval attack, and likely one would be launched. But I doubt they would really aim for the archipelago. Also, things get a bit more difficult if they launch it around say Denmark and/or wait several days for assets to be drawn away and for surface ships to be sunk.
Subs would be hard pressed to deal with F-lighters and large landing craft making short shuttle runs. Torpedoes would pass under and Swedish subs dont have that great of gun armaments. Course, the threat of mines and shore guns would make such attacks quite difficult.
=================================================
Username: Theodore
Nickname: Resident Vexillologist
Posts: 629
Date: 7/29/02 6:32
Re: Sunrise Over The Rhine
D'oh! Stupid European cities with their multiple names...<mutter mutter>
OK, let's give one of those bombs to Dresden.
=================================================
Username: Theodore
Nickname: Resident Vexillologist
Posts: 630
Date: 7/29/02 6:36
Re: Sunrise Over The Rhine
Have you any thoughts on the target list as a whole? Have I learned enough to be a nuclear warplanner yet?
And a morbid question - anyone have any idea how many casualties would be inflicted by this initial strike?
=================================================
Username: Johan Lup
Nickname: Regular
Posts: 11
Date: 7/29/02 8:06
Re: Subject on a tangent.....
Sweden and the Sverige-class ships are a bit removed from B-36'es, but here goes.... :
A situation where Germany dominated Europe and had neutralized Britain would likely have led to a Swedish accomodation to the actual situation, however unpleasant. This would have made the matter of an actual invasion moot.
As stated, the relative importance of Swedish Iron ore for Nazi Germany was much less in 1942 than in early 1940. This includes the smaller (but high-quality) iron ore mines in the middle of Sweden.
The Sverige-class ships would only have figured in the scenario of a sea-borne invasion against eastern Sweden - any approach towards the waters of the South Baltic would have been too exposed to contemplate. Not to mention doing anything about the Sound and Kattegatt.
The Sverige-class ships were much slower and no smaller than the RN cruisers and destroyers sunk by Luftwaffe dive-bombers in the Mediterranean, and their level of AA defence was no better than that of the RN cruisers in 1941. Their initial survivability against dive-bombers in a war situation would have depended on dispersal
=================================================
Username: KingSargent
Nickname: Don't Tread On Me
Posts: 788
Date: 7/29/02 18:19
Re: Subject on a tangent.....
The Sverige-class ships were much slower and no smaller than the RN cruisers and destroyers sunk by Luftwaffe dive-bombers in the Mediterranean, and their level of AA defence was no better than that of the RN cruisers in 1941. Their initial survivability against dive-bombers in a war situation would have depended on dispersal
Yes, but they were also in range of RSAF fighter cover from Sweden, which the RN ships weren't.
I don't know if the Swedes practiced their "disperse the planes and fly off the roads" tactic in the 1940s, but unless the Luftwaffe got total air control right at the start, divebombers would be horribly vulnerable.
BTW#1: Even a few Bofors would have been better AA defense than what the RN had in the Med in '41.
BTW#2: If the scenario posits a quick collapse of Britian in 1940 or 41, the Luftwaffe would not have developed the anti-ship skills they had historically. Their main anti-ship a/c would probably still have been the He115 seaplane with a torpedo.
God, Guts, and Paranoia made America great.
=================================================
Username: fltcpt
Nickname: Capitalist
Posts: 927
Date: 7/29/02 23:03
Re: On a tangent
With the UK out of the fight, would Hitler continue to pursue the V1 and V2 as hard as he did? The main problem is their limited range will make them completely ineffective against North American targets.
I could see him funding the programs for research, but not at the levels and speed that he did in 41-43. If there wasn't a intercontinental bombing campaign until 1946, then it would be likely that he would limit the development of the V weapons and pursue increased procurement and development of conventional weapons.
=================================================
Username: Hoahao
Nickname: Old Friend
Posts: 288
Date: 7/30/02 1:46
Re: Sunrise Over The Rhine
Yo Stu, it's worse for the Germans then you think!! Hows about 60 1561 kits (complete except for nuclear material) in being in Oct. 46 in real life. Ability in Oct 46 to make enough nuclear material for 6 bombs a month, expandable to 10.
REAL interesting read!!
http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hew/Nwfaq/Nfaq8.html
/////////////////////
Historian's note -- the version seen was:
https://web.archive.org/web/20020608201 ... Nfaq8.html
/////////////////////
=================================================
Username: Seer Stuart
Nickname: The Prince of Darkness
Posts: 648
Date: 7/30/02 3:36
Re: Sunrise Over The Rhine
Interesting; the problem is though that the real production rates fell very far short of expectations.
One difficulty was that the production lines themselves were jerry-built and had continuous problems. Another was that the Plutonium that was being produced was very impure and it was decaying almost as fast as it was being produced so actual availability was far, far below theoretical production. Another factor was that the plutonium bombs had to shift from a hand-built experimental design (Model 1561 - note it doesn't have a Mark designation) to a production line design. That proved to be very difficult and it took a long time to sort out. The Mark 3 and Mark 4 were seriously delayed by those design production problems; I don't think they could have been solved easily.
Remember, we're dealing with a completely new industry here that simply hadn't existed two years earlier. Nobody quite understood anything about anything so everything worked a lot less well than was expected. As a result, it was a real learn-on-the-job experience. Had the people who were running things in 1948 been around in 1945 and knew then what they knew later, we could probably have produced a lot more devices. As it was they did well to get things working by 1947. The calculations on production rates given in this article (which is very good by the way) are essentially those that were used to create the bluff that a large nuclear arsenal existed. It didn't.
Thats why I've assumed the US would mass produce the Mark 1. Its a horrible device alright but it was mass producible, something that just wasn't possible for the plutonium bombs at the time. What I can't work out is why the US produced four Mark 1s in 1948/49. Nobody's ever given an answer that holds up on that.
=================================================
Username: Johan Lup
Nickname: Regular
Posts: 12
Date: 7/30/02 7:40
Re: Subject on a tangent.....reply to KingS
For some reason, my previous post got truncated....
What I tried to post was the value of dispersal & camouflage of ships in the Stockholm archipelago (has anybody on the board seen it from the air?), which was quite effective until the much-later advent of multi-spectra sensors.
Further, Luftwaffe Stukas would - at least initially - have been range-limited regarding operations over the archipelago. That would have meant Ju-88s - a tough proposition for the SwAF J-9/P-35 fighters responsible for the Stockholm area at least until 1943.
The Luftwaffe bombers did pretty well against naval targets already in 1940 (Norway and Dunkirk).
=================================================
Username: Johan Lup
Nickname: Regular
Posts: 13
Date: 7/30/02 7:52
Re: On a tangent - RN AA
As I understand, the fire control deficiency mainly impacted the heavy AA guns (4 in and bigger).
Light AA was initially based on the 2-pounder/40mm Vickers Pom-Pom, which not only was ballistically unsatisfactory but had terrible problems with stoppages due to the shell separating from the case during feeding. (But contemporary films of all eight barrels firing away are Star Wars-like!)
When the RN adapted the Bofors 40mm the number of guns on CLs and DDs was about the same as on the RSwN ships of comparable size. The USN, however, eventually had far more AA guns per ship than other navies, presumably in view of the Kamikaze threat. Even that didn't give immunity.
=================================================
Username: Mike Kozlowski
Nickname: BUFF Fan
Posts: 294
Date: 7/30/02 15:19
Re: Sunrise Over The Rhine
Stuart-
"..... Thats why I've assumed the US would mass produce the Mark 1. Its a horrible device alright but it was mass producible, something that just wasn't possible for the plutonium bombs at the time. What I can't work out is why the US produced four Mark 1s in 1948/49. Nobody's ever given an answer that holds up on that."
Which leads me to a question. I recently got the August 2002 isue of Wings magazine, which has an excellent article on the Silverplate B-29s (for the other members of the Board, these were the 65 Martin-built Superfortresses that were specially modified to carry the first weapons.) On page 46, they show something called 'Thin Man', which I had always thought was an alternate code name for the uranium bomb. However, the article states that this was actually an alternate VERSION of the uranium bomb. I'll do my best to try and describe it - about half the length of the bay, with a VERY narrow cylindrical body, maybe not more than about 18" across. Aft are four fins (looks very much like the old fashioned MAU-93 for a Mk82 500 lb bomb), and forward the body goes directly into a wider cylindrical section, perhaps 24"-30" across, with a rounded nose and about 24" long.
This thing has had me stumped since I saw it.
Mike
=================================================
Username: KingSargent
Nickname: Don't Tread On Me
Posts: 790
Date: 7/30/02 22:35
Re: Subject on a tangent.....reply to KingS
What I tried to post was the value of dispersal&camouflage of ships in the Stockholm archipelago (has anybody on the board seen it from the air?), which was quite effective until the much-later advent of multi-spectra sensors.
I've sailed through it, and it would be real easy to hide (or get lost).
Further, Luftwaffe Stukas would - at least initially - have been range-limited regarding operations over the archipelago. That would have meant Ju-88s - a tough proposition for the SwAF J-9/P-35 fighters responsible for the Stockholm area at least until 1943.
The Ju88 wasn't all that great as a dive-bomber, certainly not up to the Ju87 in terms of accuracy. Again, I question whether they would even have anti-ship training if Britain had collapsed in 1940. Also, the Ju88s would probably have the same crappy defensive armament that the ones in the B0B had. Remember, two defensive guns per bomber was considered great for the 20 years between the wars, and without war lessons, I doubt the Germans would have advanced very fast.
It is a big mistake to assume that technical advances that get made in wartime will occur in the same time frame if there is no war.
The Luftwaffe bombers did pretty well against naval targets already in 1940 (Norway and Dunkirk).
Really? Name something they hit that was moving. Most of the casualties occurred while ships were stationary, loading or unloading, or moving very slowly.
God, Guts, and Paranoia made America great.
=================================================
Username: Sea Skimmer
Nickname: Interstellar Warlord
Posts: 334
Date: 7/31/02 1:14
Re: Subject on a tangent.....reply to KingS
They proved effective enough in the Mediterranean against much better protected shipping; plenty of hits were made on fast moving transports and warships.
As for training, in 1939 the Germans already had Ju-88 units training for anti shipping attacks. Look at the fighters Sweden has, some P-35s and 60 Re2000's are the best they have. Against those, the Ju 88 is quite well protected.
Anyway, the Germans would have the Baltic States; the target area is well within range of Ju-87s and escorting single engine fighters. Really think the Germans would have to worry about Re2000's that had to combat Fu-190's?
The Swedish ships are going to be run out of ammunition and then sunk, assuming they can live long enough to do that.
"Only the very clear sighted could have seen the triple significance of August 6 1870: the collapse of the cavalry; the transformation of the infantry; and the triumph of the gun."
- Michael Howard
=================================================
Username: Seer Stuart
Nickname: The Prince of Darkness
Posts: 649
Date: 7/31/02 2:50
Re: Sunrise Over The Rhine
The device you describe sounds very like a Mark 8 gun-type fission device. This was a greatly improved Mark 1 and was built in two forms, an external-carried device dropped from fighter bombers and an internal-carried device dropped from bombers. It was intended for tactical use against buried targets and fortifications. Yield was in the 15 - 20 kiloton range.
=================================================
Username: Mike Kozlowski
Nickname: BUFF Fan
Posts: 300
Date: 7/31/02 5:52
Re: Sunrise Over The Rhine
Stuart-
I'm going to try and scan/post the pic in here to see if that wiill help the ID. I had never heard of a tactical weapon (in the sense that it could be carried by a fighter) that early in the program.
Mike
=================================================
Username: Johan Lup
Nickname: Regular
Posts: 15
Date: 7/31/02 7:44
Re: Subject on a tangent.....reply to KingS
It appears that, even based in the Baltic, a fully-laden Stuka would have had little range margin left when reaching the Stockholm area (about 400 km).
The Ju-88's main defensive advantage was speed, in particular compared to the SwAF fighters up to 1943.
The Sverige-ships would, when operating inside the archipelago, often have been rather restricted as to manouvering while under air attack. With a top speed of 22 knots they were not exactly nimble!
I think this discussion is only relevant in regards to actual history - as said, Sweden would have had to make a political accomodation (even more than actually happened in 1940-41) in case Nazi Germany had achieved a victorious peace/armistice in W. Europe in 1940/41.
=================================================
Username: James1978
Nickname: Regular
Posts: 19
Date: 7/31/02 20:58
Re: Silverplate B-29s
Mike, do you happen to know how long it took to modify the Silverplate B-29s and when the last one was finished?
Thanks.
James
=================================================
Username: MFOM
Nickname: New Guy
Posts: 8
Date: 8/1/02 15:59
Re: Questions about the B-36
True but in the scenario in which a B-36 bombing campagin would be needed,the Germans would have had defeated the British and the Soviets,so to say they would have acted exactly the same as the Nazis did historicaly might be a bit hard to swallow since well,they lost,and in this scenario they won.The US being the sole owner of the A-bomb is quite a boon as otherwise it would be a long and costly slog across Europe against an army which would have much different capabilities to the Japanease army they fought in the Pacific
=================================================
Username: Mike Kozlowski
Nickname: BUFF Fan
Posts: 305
Date: 8/2/02 1:33
Re: Silverplate B-29s
James-
According to the Wings article, the first Silverplate ship was the 55th Boeing-Wichita bird (42-6259), initially delivered to the 58 BW/468 BG at Smoky Hill AAF in Topeka on 30 Nov 43. The plane was reassigned to Wright Field sometime in early December, and the mods were finished by 1 Feb 44. The first Thin Man drop tests were conducted at Muroc AAF (now Edwards AFB) in February and March of 44. 6259 was was damaged during a landing accident at Wendover AAF UT sometime in late 44 - the exact date doesn't seem to be available. The plane was flown out to Davis-Monthan AAF AZ in January 45 and placed in storage. It became a ground instruction aircraft at Ft Worth AAF TX in Aug 46, and was finally declared surplus and scrapped in May 48.
There were 66 total Silverplates - the prototype and 65 others. 58 were built by Martin Omaha, and the other seven were Boeing Wichita. The article doesn't indicate when the last one was finished, but the S/N on the last ship was 45-21818, which IIRC indicates a 1945 construction date.
Fifteen ships were actually named* and they comprised the original 509th BG at Tinian:
44-27296/84 Some Punkins
44-27297/77 Bockscar
44-27298/83 Full House
44-27299/86 Next Objective
44-27300/73 Strange Cargo
44-27301/85 Straight Flush
44-27302/72 Top Secret
44-27303/71 Jabit III
44-27304/88 Up An' Atom
44-27353/89 The Great Artiste
44-27354/90 Big Stink**
44-86291/91 Necessary Evil
44-86292/82 Enola Gay
44-86346/94 Luke The Spook
44-86347/95 Laggin' Dragon
* According to the article, none of the planes were actually named until just before the Hiroshima strike, and most weren't actually named until after the war was over.
** Big Stink was later renamed Dave's Dream and was the ship that dropped the first weapon in the Operation Crossroads tests.
Mike
=================================================
Username: Hoahao
Nickname: Old Friend
Posts: 296
Date: 8/2/02 2:25
Re: Questions about the B-36
The problem, MFOM, is that historically the Germans, under the pressure of events, never got their act together. Why, if they won, would they have proceeded To get their act together?? Would Hitler have felt the need to appoint Speer in order to rationalize German production?? German industry and tech depts were set up as satraps of the Nazi leaders. These were inefficent in the face of the real ongoing struggle; why would we think they would behave more rationally whilst resting on their laurals??
As for the Japanese, I would not underestimate their ability to instruct anybody in the art of things military... the hard way. By 1947, in our little scenario, the US has had to dig the Imperial Japanese Army out of various specks of land in the Pacific as well as the home islands. You can make a stronger case for the US being better prepared for landing in Europe cause a lot of the officers, non coms etc, have just conducted wide ranging amphipious ops across the Pacific. Imagine 3 battle hardened US Marine divisions backed by Corsairs, et al, flying close air support hitting European beaches. At the very least, there would have been a far heavier bombardment of the Atlantic wall, if it would have existed.
In our scenario we assume that UK is occupied, although I think that UK would be neutral til the US turned towards Germany and then jump back in. However, if the UK Has been occupied, our next question is should we invade UK, or by pass and head straight for Berlin via an invasion of Europe proper. (I assume KS, you support this option
=================================================
Username: Theodore
Nickname: Resident Vexillologist
Posts: 632
Date: 8/2/02 3:25
Re: Sunrise Over The Rhine
What I can't work out is why the US produced four Mark 1s in 1948/49. Nobody's ever given an answer that holds up on that.
Something to do with the Berlin crisis, perhaps? What answers have you heard?
=================================================
Username: MFOM
Nickname: New Guy
Posts: 9
Date: 8/2/02 20:20
Re: Questions about the B-36
If the Soviets had the A-bomb project infiltrated,then Documents relating to it resided in the Soviet Union,correct? Now if the Germans defeat the USSR,is it beyond the bounds of probability,that while digging around whats left of the NKVD files that the Germans learn something about an A-bomb project? I was not in anyway degenerating the fighting capabilties of the Japanease merely i was pointing out that the German army would be a much different proposition for the US army.
=================================================
Username: Sea Skimmer
Nickname: Interstellar Warlord
Posts: 342
Date: 8/2/02 22:24
Re: Questions about the B-36
I would say its not impossibul, but that the NKVD is going to have the time to remove pretty much everything of value to beyound the Urals, and destroy what they cant.
But I would not expect them to learn to much. They'd have to turn over the research to the same unwilling workers who could discount it if they wanted to keep things going slow.
=================================================
Username: Seer Stuart
Nickname: The Prince of Darkness
Posts: 655
Date: 8/3/02 0:10
Re: Questions about the B-36
If the Soviets had the A-bomb project infiltrated,then Documents relating to it resided in the Soviet Union, correct?
No. The big surge of useful data was in 1944/45. If Germany (that hasn't defeated the USSR, just driven it back beyond the Urals) hasn't achieved a decisive result in the east by late 1942, it isn't going to at all.
Now if the Germans defeat the USSR,is it beyond the bounds of probability,that while digging around whats left of the NKVD files that the Germans learn something about an A-bomb project?
Following from above, yes it is beyond the bounds of probability. Result; the USSR knows whats coming (and may be building their own) but Germany's still whistling in the dark. Hilarious possibility - a nuclear-armed USA and a nuclear-armed USSR fighting a non-nuclear Germany. I like that thought.
=================================================
Username: K Newman
Nickname: Bubblehead Cop
Posts: 269
Date: 8/3/02 8:35
Re: Questions about the B-36
I would have made a feignt at the British Isles, then hit Norway. Taking Norway would give the US several advantages. First, the convoys going to Murmansk don't have to worry about Norwegian based enemy naval or air assets. Second, Norway would be an easier target to hit due to geography. Third, due to its location, Norway would not only be a logical jumping-off point for an invasion of Britain, but it's also a dagger aimed right at occupied Denmark and nothern Germany. Fourth, the Baltic would no longer be a German lake. Fifth, airbases close to Germany. And sixth, no more Swedish iron ore being shipped out of Narvik.
=================================================
Username: Pengolodh
Nickname: Vicious, Cold-Blooded Piece of Toast
Posts: 162
Date: 8/3/02 11:27
Norway does not border the Baltic (n/t)
Best regards
Pengolodh
=================================================
Username: David Newton
Nickname: The English Adminstrator
Posts: 1131
Date: 8/3/02 12:31
Re: Norway does not border the Baltic (n/t)
It may not border the Baltic, but it does enable airbases to be established a lot closer to the area than would otherwise be the case. When we are talking about planes flying from Oslo as against planes flying from Keflavik, we are talking about an awful lot less range to the Baltic from Norway.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with mustard.
=================================================
Username: Hoahao
Nickname: Old Friend
Posts: 297
Date: 8/3/02 12:53
Re: Questions about the B-36
"I was not in anyway degenerating the fighting capabilties of the Japanease merely i was pointing out that the German army would be a much different proposition for the US army."
I can agree with this. Of course the flip side of that coin is that the Germans face the same situation, having only faced the Soviets in a protracted struggle.
=================================================
Username: KingSargent
Nickname: Don't Tread On Me
Posts: 815
Date: 8/3/02 16:52
Re: Questions about the B-36
By 1947, in our little scenario, the US has had to dig the Imperial Japanese Army out of various specks of land in the Pacific as well as the home islands.
Not at all.Capture, vaporise, or starve out the Home Islands, and the "specks" starve. The one possible exception to starvation would be Saipan, which could have fed the garrison and population at subsistence level, but which damn sure couldn't have supported or fuelled a modern military machine.
God, Guts, and Paranoia made America great.
=================================================
Username: Hoahao
Nickname: Old Friend
Posts: 298
Date: 8/3/02 17:35
Re: Questions about the B-36
You'll have to out line your strategic view a bit more clearly, KS. Are you saying that in a war with Japan only, that starts with Pearl Harbor, the US won't have to go Island hopping, or invade the home islands?? This would fly in the face of what happened after the German surrender in real life, as the US prepared for an invasion of the Japanese islands, stopped only by the a-bomb.
=================================================
Username: Dave AAA
Nickname: Regular
Posts: 31
Date: 8/3/02 17:59
Re: Questions about the B-36
Knowing they still have Germany to deal with, the US might well decide to blockade Japan and starve them into collapse. This would preserve forces for the coming operatons in the ETO.
=================================================
Username: K Newman
Nickname: Bubblehead Cop
Posts: 271
Date: 8/3/02 18:48
Re: Norway does not border the Baltic (n/t)
Correct. It also means that maritime strike aircraft such as the B-25s converted for the purpose are within range of the western Baltic, even if they do have to go around neutral Swedish airspace. And the flow of U-boats coming from the building yards can be cut off at the source. Norway is also a good jumping off point to Denmark. By occupying Norway, the Germans would have to divert resources to defend not only Denmark but the UK as well.
=================================================
Username: James1978
Nickname: Regular
Posts: 20
Date: 8/3/02 20:11
Re: Norway
One small nit, the Germans control up to the Urals in this scenraio, so no Murmansk convoys.
James.
=================================================
Username: Sea Skimmer
Nickname: Interstellar Warlord
Posts: 345
Date: 8/3/02 22:38
Re: Norway
But convoys could be run to the mouth of the Ob river. Historicaly the Russians built a railway up to the city of Salekhard during WW2, 1942-44.
However it ran over the Urals and then down towards Moscow. With the Germans advancing steadly, they might instead build it east of the Urals and down towards the industerial areas located furhter south.
With no railway or roads the Germans cant take the coal mines the Russians built the line to exploite.
An insane route useabul only 2-3 months a year, but they'd do it. With the Germans in the Caucasus and at the Urals, Stuff from Persia has to go the long way through central asia, and the Transsiberian is limited in capacity.
=================================================
Username: K Newman
Nickname: Bubblehead Cop
Posts: 273
Date: 8/4/02 5:41
Re: Norway
True. I forgot about that. Still, Sweden would have been a lot safer and now the German forces in the Kola Peninsula have the enemy at their back. Norway would have been a good place to stage an invasion of the Kola.
=================================================
Username: Sea Skimmer
Nickname: Interstellar Warlord
Posts: 348
Date: 8/4/02 7:30
Re: Norway
but the Kola doesnt get you anywere or anything unless you want to carry through my 3 month a year convoy to the Ob idea..
Other wise its just another side show, and even with its vast resources, the US cant afford to capture all the the outter minor bastions it would like to.
=================================================
Username: KingSargent
Nickname: Don't Tread On Me
Posts: 818
Date: 8/4/02 22:15
Re: Questions about the B-36
You'll have to out line your strategic view a bit more clearly, KS. Are you saying that in a war with Japan only, that starts with Pearl Harbor, the US won't have to go Island hopping, or invade the home islands??
Absolutely. Look, the Pacific War was well-fought. It was the best execution of a ridiculous strategy on record. But the whole concept was a mistake.
What is wrong with this picture?: "We have a war in a theater that covers 40% of the earth's surface, and that is 99% water, and we are going to key our strategy to frontal assaults by infantry on heavily defended positions."
90% of Allied (mostly American) casualties in the PTO were soldiers or Marines. Most of the rest were naval or air directly supporting ground actions. Casualties in the big naval actions were relatively light.
You can go island-hopping without hopping into heavily-defended islands. Two of the major forward fleet bases in 1945, Majuro and Ulithi were occupied with no resustance. Eniwetok was taken against slight resistance. Only Saipan had heavy casualties, and that wasn't needed as a fleet base, it was taken so the USAAF could prove once and for all that their experiment of winning a war by daylight precision strategic bombing was a total and unutterable failure. Saipan was used as a base in 1945 because we had it.
We didn't have to take Japanese airfields, all we needed was enough firm ground to build an airstrip. Taking a Japanese field meant that it had to be rebuilt anyway. At Majuro, the USN sailed into an unoccupied atoll right in the center of a ring of defended islands, built a forward base, built airfields, and kept the Japanese on the islands around neutralized by air and by anyone sailing to the base carrying out a pracice raid or live-fire bombardment on the way. The Japanese could not reinforce, resupply, or even feed the garrisons on the islands. You can fly a plane in to an isolated field, sure, but what is it going to do for fuel, ordnance, and maintenance when it gets there?
The whole SWPA was a farce, killing thousands for the sole purpose of sating MacArthur's ego. Name one strategic purpose that was served by the fighting in New Guinea and the Solomons.
The Pacific War should have been left to the Navy and Naval Air. Isolate Japan with submarines and mines, wait until we have built an overwhelming carrier force and head for the Home Islands. The IJN
has to come out and fight, regardless of the odds - it's a religious necessity. Keep raiding the Home Islands, keep them from importing anything and transporting what food they grow to where it is needed. They are
NOT self-sufficient. Starve them out.
And when Japan starves, all those bypassed garrisons starve as well. Instead, we did frontal assaults on one ring of defenses, they built another ring, we did frontal assaults on that, etc. Trench warfare in the middle of an ocean. How ridiculous can you get?
This would fly in the face of what happened after the German surrender in real life, as the US prepared for an invasion of the Japanese islands, stopped only by the a-bomb.
I can't help it if the planners were stupid. Japan was starving from submarine kills, mining, and transportation breakdowns. They could not import food, fuel, or raw materials. Estimates are that there would have been famine by October.
God, Guts, and Paranoia made America great.
=================================================
Username: Hoahao
Nickname: Old Friend
Posts: 299
Date: 8/5/02 3:33
Re: Questions about the B-36
Hehe... I knew that question would bring you out swinging. I always thought they were too conservative myself, though MacAurthur had a good kill ratio and it kept the Japanese busy.
Unfortunately, I think that for the purposes of our scenario, we should play the Pacific out as it did, or would have, without nuclear weapons and maybe the B-29 as the pressure is on to get the B-36 going.
=================================================
Username: K Newman
Nickname: Bubblehead Cop
Posts: 275
Date: 8/5/02 7:11
Re: Norway
No, but it ties down resources. And we had a lot more resources than the Germans. That's the beauty of being on the offense, the attacker can strike in a variety of places but the defender has to be ready to hold anywhere. That's why the Western Wall had so many holes in it, the Germans didn't have the resources to be everywhere on the French coast at once.
=================================================
Username: OSCSSW
Nickname: The Senior Chief
Posts: 123
Date: 8/15/02 18:53
David any details on air to air refueling @ mid 40s?
I am an operational sort of dude and really like to know the details. So, I would be grateful if you or anyone would post them
You are absolutely right about the AWACS due to Okinawa Kamikaze losses. The Lockheed (?) Constellation and later Super Connie AWACS was a wartime project that became operational in the late 40's early 50s. I also remember work done on carrier based TBM/TBFs as predecessors to the E1 Tracker Willy Fudds, which were the fathers of our current E2Cs.
=================================================
Username: David Newton
Nickname: The English Adminstrator
Posts: 1166
Date: 8/15/02 19:21
Re: David any details on air to air refueling @ mid 40s?
I don't have any operational details myself, but from what I can gather, the RAF Lancasters would have been part of something called the Tiger Force. Looking into that may well provide the results that you desire.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with mustard.
=================================================
Username: OSCSSW
Nickname: The Senior Chief
Posts: 124
Date: 8/15/02 21:22
air to air refueling @ mid 40s, David I found
I could not find anything under "Tiger Force" but under Air to air refueling history I found a site with film clips of early air to air refueling.
There was one dated 1922 with biplanes!
There was another of what appeared to be a modified B29 with three hose and drogues refueling a B29, maybe a B-50 they look the same to me. The B-29 had a refueling boom stick out the top of the cockpit.
The one that might interest you, was another B-29 refueling three RAF early jet fighters. These birds were single seat. They did not have swept back wings and the engines, two of them were mounted midway right through each wing not suspended below.
=================================================
Username: James1978
Nickname: Regular
Posts: 29
Date: 8/16/02 3:26
Re: Film clips
Could you post the address for the site where you found the film clips?
Thanks.
James
=================================================
Username: Stens
Nickname: He's a Knockout
Posts: 41
Date: 8/16/02 16:54
Here you go
http://lava.larc.nasa.gov/BROWSE/refuel.html
From the description, this must be where the Senior Chief found those clips. They're QuickTime video.
As near as I can tell, the RAF aircraft being refueled is a Gloster Meteor.
My personal favorite is the man transferring from wing to wing with a 5 gal. gas can on his back. Try mission planning for Desert Storm with that as your primary aerial refueling technique!
=================================================
Username: Woff1965
Nickname: Old Friend
Posts: 70
Date: 8/16/02 22:05
Re: Here you go
Tiger Force was scheduled to go to the far east in late 1945 - as I recall the main strike force was going to be Lancasters and Licolns with a lot of Mozzies thrown in to.
The refueling system was one developed by Flight Refueling Ltd and used a variation of hose and reel.
I read an article on this years ago but frankly don't remember much detail about it.
=================================================
Username: KingSargent
Nickname: Don't Tread On Me
Posts: 843
Date: 8/17/02 3:18
Re: Here you go
The Lancs planned for Tiger Force had huge 'piggy-back' gas tanks atop the fuselage. Hopefully, these would be empty by the time they encountered opposition...
God, Guts, and Paranoia made America great.
=================================================
Username: Woff1965
Nickname: Old Friend
Posts: 72
Date: 8/17/02 3:37
Re:Air refuelling
Someone on Pprune provided this link on AAR
http://www.rankyou.com/cpt_transfers/se ... ernational
I hope it is of interest.
=================================================
Username: Mike Kozlowski
Nickname: BUFF Fan
Posts: 342
Date: 8/17/02 6:36
Re: Here you go
King -
Would have been interesting to see how the Lanc/Linc stacked up against the B-29 during the battle for Japan, especially as at one point in 1944, modified Lancs were actively considered as the mission aircraft for the 509th.
Mike
=================================================
Username: KingSargent
Nickname: Don't Tread On Me
Posts: 851
Date: 8/17/02 22:05
Re: Here you go
Performance-wise, the B-29 would have it all over the Lanc/Linc - it was newer technology and was pushing the envelope.
OTOH, the B-29 was a complete failure in its intended role (daylight high-altitude precision bombing), so the Brit bombers could hardly have done worse.
God, Guts, and Paranoia made America great.
=================================================
Username: Allen Hazen
Nickname: Old Friend
Posts: 82
Date: 8/22/02 6:56
Aircraft footnotes
I've looked at the "quicktime" videos of the early refueling: the Boeings involved look like B-29 to me (not B-50, which have a recognizably taller vertical stabilizer).
As to the B-29 vs. Lancaster/Lincoln comparison, recall that the RAF later borowed about 80 B-29 (which they christened "Washington B. Mk. I") to replace their obsolete Lancaster/Lincoln bomber force until their new jet bombers could be brought into service. (I think two sub-let to the RAAF for use as observation platforms during some weapons tests in Australia... so if anyone ever asks you what countries' air forces operated the B-29....)
=================================================
Username: declan64
Nickname: Old Friend
Posts: 140
Date: 8/22/02 7:48
Re: Aircraft footnotes
Hey don't forget the soviets ,they sort of aquired one , then never paid boeing any royalites.
Declan
=================================================
Username: Allen Hazen
Nickname: Old Friend
Posts: 83
Date: 8/24/02 5:47
Re: Aircraft footnotes
Score one for Declan! ...who I am sure remembers that the Soviets passed a few on the the Chinese PLAAF.
I think-- but I just looked and can't find it-- that the magazine that calls itself alternately "Wings" and "Airpower" had a story about the Tu-4 a few years back: apparently the copying wasn't quite as exact as sometimes thought (a Tu-4 is not as similar to an American-made B-29 as, say, Boeing Renton and Boeing Witchita Superforts are to each other), but it's still one of the all-time classic reverse-engineering stories. ... My other favorite being the neolithic polished flint axehead whose maker had imitated the shape of one of the new-fangled copper ones... right down to the casting sprue.
=================================================
Username: Guilherme Loureiro
Nickname: Old Friend
Posts: 87
Date: 8/24/02 21:11
I had this magazine, too
It was "Wings", I think. IIRC, the Tu-4 was lighter than the B-29, as well as having different defensive armament(23mm guns).
=================================================
Username: declan64
Nickname: Old Friend
Posts: 144
Date: 8/25/02 1:46
Re: Aircraft footnotes
Thanks , lol
Declan
=================================================
Username: Seer Stuart
Nickname: The Prince of Darkness
Posts: 1659
Date: 8/24/03 22:24
Re: Aircraft footnotes
**Bump**
The great issues of the day are not solved by speeches and resolutions in the United Nations. They are solved by the tanks of the US Armed Forces.
=================================================
Username: MarkSheppard
Nickname: Regular
Posts: 15
Date: 8/24/03 22:45
Re: Aircraft footnotes
You know Stuart, you could have just linked to this thread
in the new B-36 Mk II thread rather than do Thread Necromancy :smokin:
=================================================
Username: fltcpt
Nickname: Capitalist
Posts: 2144
Date: 8/25/03 2:22
Re: Aircraft footnotes
The reason for the bump is likely that the thread is over a year old and will soon fall off the forum into administrator's archive and unviewable to the general membership.
=================================================
Username: Hoahao
Nickname: Old Friend
Posts: 1096
Date: 8/25/03 2:34
Re: Aircraft footnotes
It needs to be placed in the essay section
=================================================
Username: Kevin D Jones
Nickname: New Guy
Posts: 2
Date: 8/26/03 1:13
Re: Aircraft footnotes
A question to Seer Stuart. Are you planning to continue the nuclear attack plan that you posted in this thread on 7/25/02?
=================================================
Username: 6TURNING
Nickname: New Guy
Posts: 1
Date: 12/9/03 14:24
Re: "We're digging Hitler's grave today!!"
For anyone interested, I have moved this article to
http://www.B-36peacemakermuseum.org
Here is the full URL:
http://www.b-36peacemakermuseum.org/Art ... rigins.htm
=================================================
Username: Seer Stuart
Nickname: The Prince of Darkness
Posts: 1876
Date: 12/9/03 15:11
Re: "We're digging Hitler's grave today!!"
Welcome on board 6Turning. May I ask if you're an ex-B-36 crew member? If you go to the Fiction Board here and a story called "The Big One", a B-36 is the heroine.
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others
=================================================
Username: 6TURNING
Nickname: New Guy
Posts: 2
Date: 12/11/03 13:00
Re: "We're digging Hitler's grave today!!"
May I ask if you're an ex-B-36 crew member?"
No, I'm just a bit young to have been a B-36 person. My interest in the B-36 is from growing up here in Fort Worth and wondering what was causing that loud noise in the sky and shaking the ground.
I am presently working as historian and webmaster with a group of retired Convair and 7th Bomb Wing folks who have restored the last B-36 built for display in a museum we are attempting to build.
One of your guys dropped in on a discussion forum I created on Delphi.com for retired B-36 personnel and told us about this thread and I have been reading it with awe for the past few days.
Incidently, one of the premises in your war plan needs a slight revision - the B-36 could not be refueled in the air. It was designed to bomb European targets from the Continental U.S. and return non-stop. 45-hour missions were not uncommon for the B-36. Several of the B-36 vets who hang out on the Delphi site have compiled a list of B-36 facts that you may find interesting.
You can D/L it here:
http://www.b-36peacemakermuseum.org/b36facts.txt
Other B-36 info can be found at
http://www.b-36.net
For B-36 operational info, read all of the 7th Bomb Wing B-36 Association's website (a link is on B-36.net.)
Thanks to all here for your interest in the B-36. Few people alive today realize the importance of this aircraft.
=================================================
Username: Hoahao
Nickname: Old Friend
Posts: 1321
Date: 12/11/03 13:23
Re: "We're digging Hitler's grave today!!"
"One of your guys dropped in on a discussion forum I created on Delphi.com for retired B-36 personnel and told us about this thread and I have been reading it with awe for the past few days."
Hoahao adapts innocent air, whistles aimlessly, stares at ceiling, twiddles thumbs.
Regarding in air fueling, I think a bit of literary license is ok here. We are assuming a period of 6-7 years solid development of the aircraft from it's inception in 1940. The actual development was in fits and starts and there was no need for in air refueling since post WW2, it was a strickly nuclear bomber.
Had the US decided to design the capacity into the aircraft, I don't think it would have been hard to do.
Here, we need to use conventional bombs and desire the max bomb load. With the large numbers involved, in air refueling makes more sense then taking off from a start point in the US, landing for top off in Greenland, Iceland, or the Azores and then going off again. Since fuel consumption was massive for take off on a fully loaded bomber, we should get good fuel savings from in air refueling also.
=================================================
Username: Seer Stuart
Nickname: The Prince of Darkness
Posts: 1886
Date: 12/11/03 15:05
Re: "We're digging Hitler's grave today!!"
Does anybody get the feel this thread (and its companion) should be transferred to the Essays Section?
I am presently working as historian and webmaster with a group of retired Convair and 7th Bomb Wing folks who have restored the last B-36 built for display in a museum we are attempting to build.
Do you need help? Money, labor etc? I'd be more than willing to drop down for a week next year if you need some unskilled hands to polish metal, remove rust or whatever?
****GREAT FLASH OF LIGHT ****
How about a HPCA Convention in Fort Worth next year? If the B-36 restoration effort needs volunteers, attendees can volunteer to work on The Big Bird as well.
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others
=================================================
Username: Hoahao
Nickname: Old Friend
Posts: 1322
Date: 12/11/03 15:23
Re: "We're digging Hitler's grave today!!"
Yes it should be transferred. I stated that sometime ago elsewhere I think.
Fort Worth sounds great to me!! Crawling around the engine inside the wing of B-36 sounds like a hellava good time. But then, I'm a little strange...
=================================================
Username: Mike Kozlowski
Nickname: BUFF Fan
Posts: 1639
Date: 12/11/03 15:24
6Turning...
Greetings and welcome, sir, from an old SAC hand. Anything and anybody that keeps one of the ladies in one piece is welcome by me.
Mike Kozlowski
USAF Munitions
379 BMW 78-84
"...Tell 'em the Kwisatz Haderach is back in town..."
=================================================
Username: Theodore
Nickname: Resident Vexillologist
Posts: 1781
Date: 12/11/03 16:06
Re: "We're digging Hitler's grave today!!"
I'm game - I may be out there on spring break anyway. As some may recall, I tried to see the B-36 when I was there on fall break, but without success.
=================================================
Username: Larry
Nickname: Official USAF Sycophant
Posts: 541
Date: 12/11/03 18:06
Re: "We're digging Hitler's grave today!!"
That sounds like a fantastic idea. I need to go check out the webpage 6Turning referenced and join their group. I can afford to spend a day or two a month in Ft. Worth helping out.
I've always thought having a convention or get-together of the members of the board would be a blast. Since I'm in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area, I would volunteer to make arrangements for lodging, transportation, etc., for interested individuals.
=================================================
Username: 6TURNING
Nickname: New Guy
Posts: 3
Date: 12/12/03 17:38
Re: "We're digging Hitler's grave today!!"
"Regarding in air fueling, I think a bit of literary license is ok here."
I totally agree with this and after reading the posts in this (year-long) thread I was impressed with the efforts of the participants to maintain an accurate historical context. My only regret is having not been here while you folks were developing your story. If it's not too late I would like to share a few observations, just for the sake of discussion:
"We are assuming a period of 6-7 years solid development of the aircraft from it's inception in 1940."
That's exactly what happened. A design concept contract was let to Consolidated and Boeing on 11 April 1941 for a bomber that could fly 5000 miles, drop 10,000 pounds of bombs and return to base non-stop. (It was at this time that it was assumed that Britain would actually fall to the Nazis.) Consolidated won the competition and received a contract on 15 November 1941 for two X-models of the bomber and built them. (A few details ommited here such as the XC-99.) The result was an aircraft designed to deliver 10,000 pounds of bombs to Berlin and return home, or deliver up to 72,000 pounds of bombs at a greatly reduced range - we got what we paid for. Admittedly, development slowed before the XB flew in 1946 because priorities were placed on production of operational aircraft but I believe this would have happened even if GB had fallen. Actually, the B-36 might have been scrapped altogether in this case. (We can't wage war with paper airplanes).
The Soviet blockade of Berlin signaled the beginning of all-out B-36 development into what it eventually became by the time of the fictional nuclear war with Germany...a conventional bomber hastily converted to a nuclear bomber.
A few more things then I must go:
The fictional account relates B-36s produced in former B-24 assembly plants. ALL 383 B-36s were produced at Air Force Plant 4 in Fort Worth. If the war had continued, so would aircraft production at existing facilities.
Forward bases were not for refueling, they were for loading of nukes. Of course they were refueled before leaving the bases, but the real purpose was to receive nukes that were at that time under the absolute civilian control of the AEC. A presidential strike order, combined with another presidential order to the AEC for release of bombs, resulted in bomber crews and nuke ferry flights converging at a forward point.
Experimental in-air refueling flights were made with B-36s. They were to investigate the B-36 being used as a tanker, no consideration was given to refueling the B-36.
Once it was realized that fighters posed no threat, the B-36 fleet was stripped of its guns and became a formidable war machine, ultimately capable of a maximum takeoff weight of 410,00 pounds. It kept the post-war peace by intimidation.
We can continue this later if you like, now I must sign off to entertain guests.
=================================================
Username: 6TURNING
Nickname: New Guy
Posts: 4
Date: 12/12/03 17:45
Re: "We're digging Hitler's grave today!!"
"Do you need help? Money, labor etc?"
Yes, all of the above. After my guests leave I will post information about what we need and how we plan to proceed.
Thanks!
=================================================
