View Single Post
  #15  
Old June 4th 10, 06:31 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
Keith Willshaw[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 42
Default First Modern Air-Air refueling



"Rob Arndt" wrote in message
...
On Jun 4, 7:00�am, Dan wrote:
Keith Willshaw wrote:

"guy" wrote in message
...
On 3 June, 22:01, Peter Twydell wrote:


Did they not develop a system to refuel Tiger Force Lancasters/
Lincolns for the assault on Japan?


Guy


Yes. �In January 1944 three different designs had been prepared, the
third of which was adopted. In this the hose-drum and equipment was
placed towards the front of the aircraft and the fuel supply consisted
of two 640 imperial gallon (2,880 litres) tanks in the bomb bay.


50 sets of equipment were ordered for development and training. It was
then intended to convert a total of 500 tanker and receiver aircraft to
mount the long-range operations.


Trials for the Tiger Force operation were carried out with the
prototype
Lancaster tanker PB.972 and receiver ND.648, using the looped hose
system. It was found that refuelling could be carried out at an
indicated airspeed of 160 mph at any reasonable altitude, over or in
cloud and at night, there being no difficulty in illuminating the
receiver's hauling cable.


Then the Americans went and dropped a couple of really big bombs.


Keith


� � Come on, Keith, those bombs weren't all that big. The Brits had
Grand Slam and Tallboy bombs. Surely you wouldn't begrudge the U.S.
helping the Japanese with urban renewal, would you? Besides, those two
bombs provided Japan with some really nice fireworks to help celebrate
the end of the war.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Dan.

Are YOU gloating over destruction and loss of lives?

Caught you

But I guess it is OK b/c Japan was the enemy, right?

I wouldn't call vaporization, loss of eyesight, radiation burns, and
radiation sickness plus all the lhysical damage to Hiroshima and
Nagasaki merely a nice "fireworks" show. BTW, Japan didn't surrender
after either of the two A-bombings, but did when the USSR entered the
war against them.


That statement is factually correct but misleading.

We know from the Japanese that the use of nuclear weapons
was the crucial factor. The intervention of the Soviets was important
but because it removed any possibility that they might broker
a better deal than abject surrender but in itself it would have
no more ended the war than did the destruction of the Japanese
armies in Burma.

The Emperor in his speech to the nation made this clear.

Quote
Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power
of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable.
/Quote

He made no mention of the Soviet Invasion.

Keith