|
I do wonder if the US would have trusted the USSR enough to fly the Enola Gay out of Vladivostok or Khabarovsk or whatever just to get an airfield in range of Japan
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2019 13:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 08:45 |
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I do wonder if the US would have trusted the USSR enough to fly the Enola Gay out of Vladivostok or Khabarovsk or whatever just to get an airfield in range of Japan If the war was going like this. Pretty sure someone would have figured some way to one way launch a B29 off of a carrier.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2019 15:01
|
|
|
Doable. Just needs sufficient RATO.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2019 15:03
|
|
|
shalafi4 posted:If the war was going like this. Pretty sure someone would have figured some way to one way launch a B29 off of a carrier. God this timelines Doolittle raid is going to make for an epic film.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2019 15:10
|
|
|
shalafi4 posted:If the war was going like this. Pretty sure someone would have figured some way to one way launch a B29 off of a carrier. If the war was going like this Roosevelt would've lost in 1944. But we've already established that this is the Dark Timeline, so that's not surprising.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2019 16:40
|
|
|
   They pile on more bombs.  There are lots of strikes like this across china  Hey, at least you got planes into the air!  Losses are mounting fast.  There is little we can do against this many planes!   I'm not sure this will make much difference today....   Honestly, I was expecting that to be worse!
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2019 18:21
|
|
|
Would it have been possible to drop the nukes from something other than a B-29? Or was that the only thing the allies had capable of carrying Little Boy and Fat Man?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2019 21:56
|
|
|
They probably could have modified a few other things to carry them, but the game certainly won't allow it. edit: Mass-wise they weren't the biggest bombs of the war. goatface fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Aug 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2019 22:08
|
|
|
B-29s were the only platform available. Even for B-29s, the ones capable of carrying them were specially modified ones that had said modifications done on the actual assembly lines, so it wasn't some simple in-the-field change. Like, maybe it would have been possible to modify a Lancaster or a B-17 - maybe - but you're talking incredibly extensive modifications, and neither has anywhere near the same range. Or speed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2019 22:10
|
|
|
Yeah. You really want to be as high and moving as fast as possible because you're dropping a nuke behind you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2019 22:15
|
|
|
The B-32 Dominator was a reasonable alternative, but the B-29 was still better than it in most ways by sheer virtue of entering service earlier and in much greater numbers. Alternatively, assuming the B-36 program was accelerated by a year or so, it might have been possible to see an early Peacemaker drop the bomb as early as December '45. They could have theoretically hit targets from as far away as Australia.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2019 22:40
|
|
|
Lord Koth posted:B-29s were the only platform available. Even for B-29s, the ones capable of carrying them were specially modified ones that had said modifications done on the actual assembly lines, so it wasn't some simple in-the-field change. Little Boy was lighter and smaller in all dimensions than Tallboy, to say nothing of Grand Slam. Lancaster would have been able to carry it without any technical issues. Most 4-engine bombers would have been able to carry one with relatively few modifications. B-29 was chosen because of range, speed and altitude, not carrying capacity.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 00:21
|
|
|
Realistically there were a number of strategic bombers under development that were expected to have been deployed in 1946. I vaguely recall reading at least one's theoretical range would let it bomb targets in Germany that could have flown from the east coast. So presuming their production was accelerated, they probably could have launched from India or Australia. Then again instead of bombs htey'd probably be loadedup with New Zealand base units.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 04:23
|
|
|
I imagine that if American forces hadn’t seized Iwo and Okinawa then the Aleutians would have to be used, but I don’t know if the -29 or -32 would have the range. The -36 wouldn’t reach service until 46 even accelerated, I think.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 04:32
|
|
|
Magni posted:Little Boy was lighter and smaller in all dimensions than Tallboy, to say nothing of Grand Slam. Lancaster would have been able to carry it without any technical issues. Most 4-engine bombers would have been able to carry one with relatively few modifications. B-29 was chosen because of range, speed and altitude, not carrying capacity. I'm not necessarily sure I agree with that last line, given the Lancasters used by 617 Squadron were extensively modified to carry Tallboys, and even moreso to carry Grand Slams. You are fully correct that they could definitely have been modified to carry Fat Man/Little Boy though (if likely extremely dangerous to actually drop them).
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 04:51
|
|
|
Yeah, I read somewhere that a Lancaster was pretty much perfect for the job with its massive unobstructed bomb bay, but they'd have had to train the American crew on the plane and it was considered less effort to just mod one the crew already knew how to fly. For comparison purposes, Grand Slam bombs that Lancasters dropped were 8 meters long and 10,000 kilos. Little Boy was 3 meters long and 4,400 kilos.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 13:48
|
|
|
A Lancaster is also 30% slower and 10,000 feet lower than a B-29, which is probably not good if you want your crew to survive the blast
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 20:48
|
|
|
I'm curious about those super long-range bombers. Wouldn't flying from Australia to Japan enable the Japanese to intercept the bombers at several points? Or just navigational errors, engine failures, so many points of failure. Or am I underestimating the competence of 1945 aircrews and airplanes?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 22:27
|
|
|
Dunno-Lars posted:I'm curious about those super long-range bombers. Wouldn't flying from Australia to Japan enable the Japanese to intercept the bombers at several points? Or just navigational errors, engine failures, so many points of failure. Or am I underestimating the competence of 1945 aircrews and airplanes? In this universe? Suicide. In real life I think the Japanese are basically powerless to remove anything from the sky. The risk would be entirely mechanical or pilot based.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 00:39
|
|
|
Dunno-Lars posted:I'm curious about those super long-range bombers. Wouldn't flying from Australia to Japan enable the Japanese to intercept the bombers at several points? Or just navigational errors, engine failures, so many points of failure. Or am I underestimating the competence of 1945 aircrews and airplanes? Japan, even in this hypothetical 1945, has: 1. No functional long range air warning systems 2. No ability to produce a large number of turbo/supercharger equipped aircraft which can catch up to bombers fast enough 3. Completely inadequate high altitude anti-aircraft weapons except in a few concentrations around major cities on the mainland 4. A fuel shortage owing to the lack of tankers from the Indonesian oil sources Intercepting the B-29s as they came over target points was difficult enough. If we threw B-36s into the mix, the situation would be very similar - there's no reasonable chance for any of the island airbases in the way to detect and intercept them, and they're limited to only a few minutes over the main islands before dropping their payloads and becoming practically impossible for any existing Japanese aircraft to catch. Operational losses would most likely be the major concern, since the B-36 was a pain to fly even during peacetime. Aircrew fatigue would also probably need to be managed with crew rotation due to the extremely long flight time, nearly doubling the logistical footprint of the bombers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 01:01
|
|
|
Yeah, I think everybody sort of takes it for granted because both the UK and Germany put a whole lot of work into theirs in time for the war, but the sort of integrated air defense networks they built to attack strategic bombers required an enormous amount of effort, in having the right radars, interceptors, and just experience running the network. Real life Japan had nothing like it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 01:34
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:Yeah, I think everybody sort of takes it for granted because both the UK and Germany put a whole lot of work into theirs in time for the war, but the sort of integrated air defense networks they built to attack strategic bombers required an enormous amount of effort, in having the right radars, interceptors, and just experience running the network. Real life Japan had nothing like it. The only air defense you would ever need is IJN battleships bombarding Allied air bases.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 13:25
|
|
|
Dunno-Lars posted:I'm curious about those super long-range bombers. Wouldn't flying from Australia to Japan enable the Japanese to intercept the bombers at several points? Or just navigational errors, engine failures, so many points of failure. Or am I underestimating the competence of 1945 aircrews and airplanes? This would have been more of a concern if Japan had any kind of interception or air defense capability left in 1945.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 13:40
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:This would have been more of a concern if Japan had any kind of interception or air defense capability left in 1945. They did, just not a lot of it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 13:55
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Yeah, I think everybody sort of takes it for granted because both the UK and Germany put a whole lot of work into theirs in time for the war, but the sort of integrated air defense networks they built to attack strategic bombers required an enormous amount of effort, in having the right radars, interceptors, and just experience running the network. Real life Japan had nothing like it. Even with all the work Germany put into it, it still was overwhelmed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 15:51
|
|
|
When a thousand planes come "knocking" there's not a lot that you can do about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 22:33
|
|
|
goatface posted:When a thousand planes come "knocking" there's not a lot that you can do about it. Stanley Baldwin posted:I think it is well also for the man in the street to realise that there is no power on earth that can protect him from being bombed. Whatever people may tell him, the bomber will always get through. The only defence is in offence, which means that you have to kill more women and children more quickly than the enemy if you want to save yourselves…
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 00:25
|
|
|
  The Soviets continue to hit our airfields. Losses are mostly in the 1's and 2's, but still lots of strikes hit home.  I wonder what those ships are to the south?   We get a revenge bombing in.  Hey! We killed more than we lost once more!
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 07:59
|
|
|
  Your trying to invade Rabaul with this?  A Midget sub has a go, but it battered by a destroyer.  Using rain as cover, our destroyer surprised the enemy force and sinks many of them.  The survivors begins the traditional landing of Kiwis.  The poor buggers are shelled back into the stone age.   Dammit!  My tankers are hurting today!  Our bombers plaster Guam again.  The CAP at least tries.  Once again, we see a dozen raids like this one.  This one hurts!  A busy and world spanning day! I won the air war again.  But the ships took some losses.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 08:22
|
|
|
So we're now seven days into the Soviet invasion and still haven't seen a land unit. In real life it took the Soviets something like eleven days to overrun all of Manchuria and northern Korea. Definitely A-OK 100% not broken land system 
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 13:18
|
|
|
6 August 1945 Nothing to report. Oh, except for the Hiroshima bombing. 7 August 1945 US aircraft sink escort No. 39 near Korea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 14:52
|
|
|
Where is the Soviet army? The world wonders.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 15:48
|
|
|
I wonder if the AI is even competent enough to advance the Soviet ground forces. What a train wreck this AI has become.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 16:07
|
|
|
That was some fireworks Yamakaze caused there. LCI(R)s taking 5-inch fire should yield a result looking something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndVhgq1yHdA
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 16:08
|
|
|
Yeah, this is an impressive demonstration of just how the game doesn't work at all. Spend literal years waiting to see the soviets roll through and they don't move.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 16:22
|
|
|
Grey invade Siberia.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 16:33
|
|
|
I forget if it was in this thread that Neptune's Inferno was recommended, but just finished it and it was pretty interesting stuff. It is all about the naval battles around the Guadalcanal landings, with a ton of detail on what went mostly wrong for both sides when they tried to fight at night. It does feature some battleship bombardments of an airfield even, so well worth the read.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 23:00
|
|
|
Do the soviets contribute anything naval wise?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 23:59
|
|
|
Mans posted:Do the soviets contribute anything naval wise? They have subs right next to the Home Islands, but that's about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2019 00:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 08:45 |
|
|
In real life the Soviets performed multiple amphibious invasions, landing in Korea, Sakhalin, and the Kurils, so presumably the have the assets to do that even if the AI never will.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2019 00:14
|
|