Talk:Avro Lancaster

Assessment - use of the Lancaster for the atomic bomb

While the British seem under the delusion that the Lancaster was seriously considered for use in dropping the atomic bomb, that was never really the case. It was a merely a brief suggestion to use the Lancaster, and that suggestion was quickly rejected. The previous stated that the Lancaster was considered for dropping the atomic bomb before the Silverplate program was introduced, which was not true. When developmental issues arose, it was suggested to use Lancaster, but the idea was rejected for several reasons - the Lancaster lacked the range to fly from the base where the atomic bombs were to be staged, and the US would not have staged the atomic bombs at Okinawa, as being too risky, there possibly being Japanese defenders still hiding out. Also, the Lancaster did not allow for bombs to be armed in flight, and arming the atomic bombs on the ground would have been rejected as too risky. Finally, the Lancaster was 70 mph slower than the B-29, and likely would not have escaped the atomic bomb blast, making using the Lancster a suicide mission, something completely unacceptable to the US The previous version of the article made it seem like it was only American national vanity that prevented using the Lancaster, which was untrue and rather insulting implication. 198.111.162.10 (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted your changes as they were not reliably sourced - The Youtube video given was not a reliable source. As far as I remember, consideration of the Lancaster as a platform for the atomic bomb was only as a fallback if both the B-29 and B-32 (which shared a common engine) failed - other US (and British) aircraft simply didn't have a big enough bomb-bay to carry the atmomic bomb. Of course this will require sources.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The Lancaster was in fact the original choice for carrying the atomic bomb as it was the only aircraft capable of carrying the early "Thin Man" atomic bomb design as well as the later Fat Man and Little Boy ones. The shorter range was not relevant as the Lancaster had ample range to deliver the 10,000 lb bomb to its originally intended target - which was Germany.

BTW, all three bomb types - Fat Man, Little Boy and the previously mentioned Thin Man, were built with British single-point mountings for hanging on British-style bomb shackles - US bombers used twin-point mounting. The two B-29s used for the attacks had to be modified to incorporate these British-style bomb shackles.

Neither Fat Man nor Little Boy were armed in flight. They were both armed on the ground before take-off. In-flight arming didn't appear until later bomb designs a number of years later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.91 (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Both Fat Man and Little Boy were both armed in flight. Fat Man by charging up the X unit in flight, Little Boy by weaponeer Deak Parsons inserting the cordite propellant bags into the breech. As Little Boy used only a single primer, it couldn't be safed electrically. Neither had in-flight insertion of the nuclear materials capsule, but that's a different thing. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I was of course referring to the latter when the OP mentioned 'in-flight arming'. There was no reason a similar arrangement to that which you mention could not have been arranged for the Lancaster either though an additional electrical system or via an access hatch in the bomb-bay roof/cabin floor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.91 (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The Lancaster (as was) was never seriously considered as an atomic bomber. Pretty soon after this need was tabled, the need for the improved Avro Lincoln was also recognised - although this was still the Lancaster IV at the time. The Lincoln used Griffons, not Merlins, and one aspect was an improved internal layout for the huge bombs like Grand Slam. This would help with nukes too, as these were recognised to be large diameter single loads - although this was still some time before the shift to Pu implosion and the even larger diameter of the spherical physics package.

The first Lincoln engines were the new Merlin 85 with two-stage supercharging for better altitude performance, but the point was that by using the equally new 'power egg' mounts, any engine could be fitted easily during production - and the Griffon was on the drawing board by now. By the time any new weapon appeared, it was assumed that Griffons (or whatever, even a Centaurus (as if Avro would countenance such a thing!)) would be there too.

There were two goals to the Lincoln. Not to replace the Lancaster (Lancasters were useful), but to replace the Halifax and Stirling. A single bomber for the whole fleet, allowing better organisation of raids and not sacrificing Stirling crews. But a second goal too was to give a better performance for specialist raids, such as the obviously effective Grand Slam and Tallboy, but with a performance better than that of an overloaded Lancaster carrying one hanging through the doors. Of course in the end, progress of late-war bombing became so obviously effective (albeit at the huge cost in crews) that it wasn't worth the risk of disruption to Lancaster production. So the Lincoln wasn't produced until this was no longer an issue, and it wasn't placed out with de Havilland or Shorts. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

"The Lancaster (as was) was never seriously considered as an atomic bomber." - yes it most definitely was.

In the early years of the Tube Alloys/Manhattan Project the Lancaster was the only Allied bomber then entering service capable of carrying a single large 10,000 lb bomb to possible targets in Germany. It was the Lancaster that made such an attack using such a heavy bomb possible, as no previous bombers could carry a single bomb of that weight that far - the B-29 did not make its first flight until late 1942 and it would be nowhere near ready for service for several years, that's assuming it did not suffer teething troubles - which it subsequently did. The bomb bays of the B-17, and B-24, and Halifax were too small to physically accommodate the bomb.

The Lancaster IV and V (Lincoln B.I and B.II) were specifically designed as improved Lancasters for the Far East, which is why they weren't built in greater numbers and why production didn't shift from the Lancaster to the Lincoln until later, as there were no airfields in the Far East, i.e., Burma, from-which to operate them from at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.91 (talk) 10:43, 24 August 2024 (UTC)