• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

B-36 Controversy (was Re: Why no B-36 in Korea)

pathology_doc

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
1,007
Reaction score
293
Not really "good" pictures, but a quick search makes me think, that the B-36 only rarely showed its full gun
armament.
Pictures from: B-36_01: Meyers K. Jacobsen "Convair B-36 Peacemaker"
B-36_02: squadron/signal N°42 "B-36 in action"
B-36_03 & 04: Meyers K. Jacobsen "Convair B-36 - A Comprehensive History of America's Big Stick"

Maybe interesting the caption of _02, saying, that the cover of the forward turrets was left open during take-off,
as an additional way out in the case of an emergency.
Thanks heaps.

Say hello to a bucketload of drag when you extend those - given the cruising ranges they were going for, no wonder they didn't want them "always out" like on the B-29.

Are those pairs of twin-gun turrets side by side? Certainly looks like it.

I suspect that level of gun armament could have given a fighter a difficult time in rarefied air.
 

Justo Miranda

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
4,815
Reaction score
3,590
Website
www.amazon.com
The B-36 cost $ 3.6 million each and was vulnerable to MiG-15 attacks.

Not exactly very vulnerable, but over the narrow front of Korea it would clearly be deprived of much of its advantages.


In 1946 the main weapon of the Strategic Air Command (SAC) was the Boeing B-29 bomber, but this model reached the obsolescence when 57 Superfortress were destroyed by MiG-15 Soviet fighters during the Korean War.

In 1947 the USAF memorandum ‘Global Strategy Concept’ calling for a new intercontinental bomber able to perform nuclear attacks against the Soviet Union if the Red Army invaded Western Europe.

In June 1948, the Convair B-36, a 410,600 pounds (186,000 kg) heavy bomber entered in service. It tripled the gross weight of the B-29 and was able to carry two Mark III atomic bombs and had 8,000 miles (12,900 km) of range.

At the time, the main Soviet air-defense-radar was the American-supplied SCR-270 which were only effective up to 39,360 ft (12,000 m) and the main Soviet interceptor was the Lavochkin La-9 with 35,400 ft (10,792 m) service ceiling.

The B-36 proved that it could fly at 40,000 ft (12,195 m) over the Soviet air space without being intercepted and the Truman Administration ordered the construction of 386 machines under the Cold War policy of nuclear deterrence.

Unfortunately for the SAC the Soviet fighter MiG-15A, with 50,840 ft (15,500 m) ceiling was delivered to operational units early 1949, followed by the MiG-17 (15,850 m) late in 1953, the MiG-19S (17,900 m) and the MiG-19 PM (17,000 m) armed with four K-5MS Akali air-to-air missiles in 1957. The B-36 served for only ten years.
 

Zoo Tycoon

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
551
Reaction score
753
Say hello to a bucketload of drag when you extend those - given the cruising ranges they were going for, no wonder they didn't want them "always out" like on the B-29.

I suspect that level of gun armament could have given a fighter a difficult time in rarefied air.

Although these might look potent, they’re only of any use if they successfully deploy, come to life when required and then retract. A single failure in piece of the mechanism/system during deployment the aircraft is defenceless. Even if it deploys, is successfully used, because of the excess drag, it’s got to successfully retract as well. I don’t know if system redundancy was practiced at this time but I suspect not.

The basic architecture is based on desperation and the belief that although a fraction of the assets will be lost to attrition, some will get through.
 

Similar threads

Top