Armchair General's DonbAss Derailed Discussion Thread (Topics Include History, Traps, and the Ongoing Slavic Civil War plus much much more)

[bintananth]

...To say that could have ended badly is an understatement. Fucking hell. 😮

Bomb, Medium Capacity, 22,000lbs was not a joke.

EDIT: I juat looked it up to confirm. A B-29 couldn't get a Grand Slam off the ground and deliver it "to whom it may concern". An Avro Lancaster could and you would need to remove the bomb bay doors just to get a Grand Slam or an Atomic Bomb into the bomb bay.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

The RAF once left a Grand Slam on display as a gate guard kids could play on for fifteen years before anyone noticed that it was live and would flatten both RAF Scrampton and the city of Lincoln if it went "BOOM!":

Nope, this is an urban legend. Even if it was true, a 22,000 ton conventional explosive would absolutely not flatten a city six miles away; you'd need a strategic-scale nuclear weapon to do that.

(Especially since the urban legend fully quoted claims the live bomb was subsequently detonated at the ordnance range at Shoeburyness, which is only *three* miles from sensitive sites. Clearly not somewhere one would actually detonate a bomb that would supposedly flatten everything in six miles...)

 

[bintananth]

Nope, this is an urban legend. Even if it was true, a 22,000 ton conventional explosive would absolutely not flatten a city six miles away; you'd need a strategic-scale nuclear weapon to do that.

(Especially since the urban legend fully quoted claims the live bomb was subsequently detonated at the ordnance range at Shoeburyness, which is only *three* miles from sensitive sites. Clearly not somewhere one would actually detonate a bomb that would supposedly flatten everything in six miles...)

News reports tend to vastly underreport the damage because it's all propaganda.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

News reports tend to vastly underreport the damage because it's all propaganda.

No, as in there's a sunk WWII transport ship full of explosives three miles off Shoeburyness. They would NOT detonate anything big like a Grand Slam there for fear of setting that off, and they wouldn't haul a sensitive UXO risk 150 miles just to set it off it *right next to* said risk and *closer* to a city than Scrampton is to Lincoln.

Inerting in place with steam is the protocol for a reason, the urban legend simply does not add up.

 

[bintananth]

No, as in there's a sunk WWII transport ship full of explosives three miles off Shoeburyness. They would NOT detonate anything big like a Grand Slam there for fear of setting that off, and they wouldn't haul a sensitive UXO risk 150 miles just to set it off it *right next to* said risk and *closer* to a city than Scrampton is to Lincoln.

Inerting in place with steam is the protocol for a reason, the urban legend asimply does not add up.

I think you just made my point for me.

BTW: B-29s weren't capable of carrying 22,000lb Earthquake bombs.

 

[Zachowon]

I think you just made my point for me.

BTW: B-29s weren't capable of carrying 22,000lb Earthquake bombs.

The Lancaster made to carry the GrandSlam was heavily modified and could jot be any ordinary Lancaster.

 

[bintananth]

The Lancaster made to carry the GrandSlam was heavily modified and could jot be any ordinary Lancaster.

They were also part of the backup plan for the B-29 project ... which was actually more expensive than the Atomic Bomb.

 

[Zachowon]

They were also part of the backup plan for the B-29 project ... which was actually more expensive than the Atomic Bomb.

The B 29 cost more but was a much superior bomber then the Lancaster. The B 29 had longer range, higher altitude, and a bigger bomb load

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Yes and no. Total cost for the B-29 program was in the range of $3 billion versus "only" $1.9 billion for the Manhattan Project, but this figure includes not only development but also production of nearly four thousand aircraft. And the production was the bigger portion of that; early B-29s cost nearly $1 million each as actual production cost, declining as continued production became more efficient to a typical unit cost of around $640,000 each.

 

[bintananth]

Yes and no. Total cost for the B-29 program was in the range of $3 billion versus "only" $1.9 billion for the Manhattan Project, but this figure includes not only development but also production of nearly four thousand aircraft.

B-29s had a 357mph top speed. The F4F Wildcats and A6M2 Zeros which fought at Midway would not have been able to keep up with a B-29.

 

[Zachowon]

B-29s had a 357mph top speed. The F4F Wildcats and A6M2 Zeros which fought at Midway would not have been able to keep up with a B-29.

But it's cruise speed is 220...
It wasn't going max speed under load...
The A6M5 which it would have seen, not the M2 could catch it.
And by the time of the 29, we were using F6F and the F4U.
Both if which were faster...

 

[bintananth]

But it's cruise speed is 220...
It wasn't going max speed under load...
The A6M5 which it would have seen, not the M2 could catch it.
And by the time of the 29, we were using F6F and the F4U.
Both if which were faster...

Um ...

An A6M5's top speed was only 351mph.

EDIT: B-29 pilots could basically do what SR-71 pilots did on the rare occasions when they were intercepted: open the throttle and run.

 

[Zachowon]

Um ...

An A6M5's top speed was only 351mph.

EDIT: B-29 pilots could basically do what SR-71 pilots did on the rare occasions when they were intercepted: open the throttle and run.

6 mph difference.
The B29 would have to dump its load then accelerate.... which may be too late..

Anyway this is off topic

 

[bintananth]

6 mph difference.
The B29 would have to dump its load then accelerate.... which may be too late..

Anyway this is off topic

Yes, we're off topic ...

An A6M5 pilot would also need about an hour to attempt to intercept a B-29 because a Zero needs about 30min just to reach a B-29's cruising altitude.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Keep in mind that as a carrier based naval fighter, the Zero was not commonly used to intercept B-29s. The primary Japanese interceptors would be the Nakajima Ki-43, Ki-44, Ki-63, and Ki-84.

The 43 was the Japanese Army's most common land-based fighter, and could reach the B-29 although it struggled to do so. The later Ki-63 was notable for being the only inline-engined Japanese fighter and had superb speed, although limited high altitude performance and lightweight armament meant it still had difficulty in intercepting B-29s. The Ki-84 was the best Japanese interceptor by far, having both the performance and the heavy armament to be a very serious threat to B-29s.

Edit: I forgot the Ki-44, which was the best *early* Japanese interceptor and was the only early Japanese fighter that was built for speed and climb as opposed to agility-at-all-cost. It was produced in limited numbers in parallel with the Ki-43, and was replaced late war by the -84.

 

[Zachowon]

Keep in mind that as a carrier based naval fighter, the Zero was not commonly used to intercept B-29s. The primary Japanese interceptors would be the Nakajima Ki-43, Ki-63, and Ki-84.

The 43 was the Japanese Army's most common land-based fighter, and could reach the B-29 although it struggled to do so. The later Ki-63 was notable for being the only inline-engined Japanese fighter and had superb speed, although limited high altitude performance and lightweight armament meant it still had difficulty in intercepting B-29s. The Ki-84 was the best Japanese interceptor by far, having both the performance and the heavy armament to be a very serious threat to B-29s.

The issue was how little they made it to help fight and because the Army aviation and Navy were not friendly

 

[WolfBear]

You can't blame bad translation when it was included in the original written remarks and she was speaking in English in the video:

Russia's invasion of Ukraine has brought death, devastation and unspeakable suffering.​

​

We all remember the horrors of Bucha.​

​

It is estimated that more than 20,000 civilians and 100,000 Ukrainian military officers have been killed so far.​

​

First, Russia must pay for its horrific crimes, including for its crime of aggression against a sovereign state.​

Losing 100K in a year means that Ukraine can go at this for 15 years before it endures France WWI-style deaths.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

The B 29 cost more but was a much superior bomber then the Lancaster. The B 29 had longer range, higher altitude, and a bigger bomb load

While the Lancaster's bomb bay could accommodate the nuclear bomb, its performance while carrying such a heavy load left much to be desired. In order to reach Hiroshima and Nagasaki with a nuclear payload, a Lancaster would have to fly out of Okinawa -- inherently risky since the Japanese were still launching air attacks against the airstrip until the end of the war -- as opposed to the safe option of Tinian as the B-29 did. In addition, a Lancaster could *only* carry the one-off Little Boy bomb internally; while its bomb bay was longer than that of a Superfortress, it was narrower and could not fit the Fat Boy internally unless the bomb bay doors were completely removed as with Grand Slams.

 

[WolfBear]

Putin's latest ploy to ship more Russian soldiers to Ukraine is offering free sperm banks

Before getting shipped off to war, Russian soldiers will have the opportunity to freeze their sperm for free, "just in case."

fortune.com

Meet the dissident Russians living the 'nightmare from which it is impossible to wake up' | CNN

While Russian state media gives the impression that everyone in Russia supports the war and Putin, many of the country's more liberal, educated and well-traveled citizens have spent the past nine months horrified about the violence inflicted on Ukraine by their own country.

www.cnn.com

Hard-Line Positions by Russia and Ukraine Dim Hope for Peace Talks

Both Moscow and Kyiv say they are ready to talk, but their terms for sitting down at a negotiating table suggest otherwise.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Zachowon]

While the Lancaster's bomb bay could accommodate the nuclear bomb, its performance while carrying such a heavy load left much to be desired. In order to reach Hiroshima and Nagasaki with a nuclear payload, a Lancaster would have to fly out of Okinawa -- inherently risky since the Japanese were still launching air attacks against the airstrip until the end of the war -- as opposed to the safe option of Tinian as the B-29 did. In addition, a Lancaster could *only* carry the one-off Little Boy bomb internally; while its bomb bay was longer than that of a Superfortress, it was narrower and could not fit the Fat Boy internally unless the bomb bay doors were completely removed as with Grand Slams.

Oh I know this. Just arguing with bintananth