There was a fundamental difference how the U.S. saw the war against Japan, and the war against Germany. And the word – not to a small part – was race, and also revenge.

I’ve always wondered about the US insistence on precision bombing over Germany but being more than happy to area-bomb Tokyo (in particular) with a greater death-toll than either of the atom bombs. There was Pearl Harbor of course and I’m sure the Japanese reinforced the US image of them as ‘untermensch’ following China and Bataan with the treatment of civilians and POWs plus their fanatical defence of the Pacific Islands against US landings.

I’m not sure what the B-29 would have brought to the table.

With or without LeMay? Even without the atom bomb…

…I wouldn’t have wanted to live in Germany under LeMay by day, and Harris by night.

And isn’t it difficult to land an aircraft at such high weights?

Since the V-Bombers were designed from the outset to carry nuclear weapons the capability to land with a full bombload and a decent reserve of fuel was surely designed-in from the start! :diablo:

Not true, MTOW can equal MLW, for the Vulcan B2 MTOW and Emergency MLW were both 204,000lb. Normal MLW was 140,000.

The early nuclear weapons were considerably less than 21klbs, about IIRC 12klbs for the Violet Club/YS1. I never flew with Blue Steel but seem to recall that it weighed about 15klbs.

OTOH 21x1000lb weighed considerably more than that. With the carriers and Retard Tail Units the bomb bay load was about 25,000lb, a little less for un-retarded bombs. With standard fuel reserves this would put you over Normal MLW at most UK airfields.

You must realise that nothing magical happens at Normal MLW. If you land slightly above it or even a lot above it you just make an entry in the F700/Tech Log.

So that’s how it feels to have somebody drive a coach and horses through your argument! 😀

My thinking was a bit ‘woolly’ but at least I was correct about landing with full bombload being ‘designed in’…..I think. 😮

2. What effect/s would it have on carrier battles in general, and…

3. …can we think of any specific examples where being able to launch and recover and avoid into deck park overshoots would have affected a particular aspect of a particular naval engagement.

Could the outcome of the Battle of Midway have been different if the Japanese had had angled-decks?

IIRC the Japanese were caught (by US dive-bombers) with their aircraft ranged on deck (and in the hanger) whilst changing between bombloads for an attack on Midway and an attack on the (suddenly located) US carrier group.

Would an angled-deck have allowed re-arming to take place without making the carriers so vulnerable? I don’t think the Japanese fighters were trapped on deck by the re-arming of the strike-wing but would the fact that flight operations could continue with some of the strike-wing ranged on deck have increased the options from the all-or-nothing decision that proved so fatal?

Here’s a question for the Fw189 experts; what is the purpose of those ‘strakes’ fitted to the propeller spinners? :confused:

Is it something to assist the air-cooling of the engines?

(There is a good view of them in number 25/30 of this set of pictures.)

Would the groundcrew really make a note of the engine oil grade used?

While I can see the temptation to connect ‘FINA E’ with the well-known oil company, wouldn’t the groundcrew write ‘OIL FINA E’ as their shorthand? It looks to me more like a quick pre-flight check, filter clean, plugs checked, engine fina(?), level(s) OK.

On the other hand, would different grades of oils be used, for cold weather for example?

Was there such a thing as an ‘ENGINE FINAL’ check before flight?

I’m no expert here…..just my two cents. 🙂

The bombs had to fall a specified distance before they were armed. This then allowed the aircraft to dump the bombs on takeoff, should they lose an engine, without destroying friendly folks and potentially themselves.

But bombs (except HC type such as the 4000lb ‘cookie’) could be jettisoned safe from any altitude.

Deryck is right, the arming wire was fed from a spool on each bomb rack with a quick release pin on the end as the bombs fell, the wire was pulled out and released the pin in the fuse and the wire retracted back into the spool.

How were bombs actually ‘armed’ in flight; were the ‘spools’ dropped with the bombs if they were jettisoned ‘safe’?

This is probably where the confusion in the translation occurred.