Talk:Avro Lancaster

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 16, 2008Peer reviewReviewed

Assessment - use of the Lancaster for the atomic bomb[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]