Soviet nuclear weapons in early 1951

As for the Americans, who did this sort of thing much more frequently, even operating under the same luxuries of caution that peacetime and non-time sensitive nature of the missions afford them, lost multiple aircraft to Soviet air defenses. Looking particularly at strategic bomber equivalents, they lost two RB-29s in 1952, an RB-50 in 1953, a RB-50 and another RB-29 in 1954, and a RB-47 in 1955. And that’s just losses to Soviet fighters.

Every one of the losses you chose took place at relatively low altitude over the Sea of Japan. Not one during a deep penetration of the USSR.

Dynasoar
 
In any case, reconnaissance missions are not the same as bombing missions. In early-1944, the largely successful German reconnaissance overflights of southern England were pretty routine, averaging one every other day, and suffered few losses. Their attempted strategic bombing campaign in Operation Steinbock at the same time and against the same region, on the other hand, got completely slaughtered.

How do you tell the difference between a B-45 and an RB-45 at 40,000 feet?
You can't
It could be either.

And with atomic war, you have to stop every single plane, because you can't be sure.
Cameras or Mk4 bomb?

That's the difference from WWII to WWIII

And per my example from http://www.spyflight.co.uk/scul.htm with the whole Soviet network on alert, couldn't even vector on the lower performance RB-45 over the central/southern USSR
 
The North American B-45 aircraft is one of the last I'd select for an overflight, since it was relatively slow and had no real altitude capability. The missions were discussed in the unspecified reference (Paul Lashmar?) If so, the book is excellent as far as it goes, but says nothing about RAF Canberra bombers equipped with Spectre rocket engines climbing away from random MiG-15s, or operations conducted by 'Featherweight" B-36s which occasionally sighted MiGs far below them.

Dynasoar

Probably because none of those stories have any factual basis in reality. A simple glance at the specifications shows that any B-36 variant has a lower ceiling then the MiG-15. Even the highest altitude of the RB-36 “featherweights” I’ve heard of that was credible was around 50,000 feet, about the same as a ‘15.

Plus, no examples of these are aircraft actually weighed down by atomic bombs, which would affect their performance characteristics quite a bit.

Every one of the losses you chose took place at relatively low altitude over the Sea of Japan. Not one during a deep penetration of the USSR.

Dynasoar

Tgere’s actually no indications at what altitude these intercepts took place at. The location, Ingive, but then as previously noted recon missions were rather ultra-cautious and often aborted when it looked like the Russians might pull an intercept, so even that is not proof positive of inability to intercept.

How do you tell the difference between a B-45 and an RB-45 at 40,000 feet?
You can't
It could be either.

Well, for one, a B-36 weighed down with a payload of heavy atomic bombs have a lower ceiling rather closer to 40,000 feet, with the actual altitudes for US tactical manuals called for them to fly at 30-35,000 feet, and at much slower speeds then a B-45 outfitted with relatively much lighter cameras.

And with atomic war, you have to stop every single plane, because you can't be sure.

Yes, and had I argued that the Soviets were capable of stopping every plane, you might have a point. But I didn’t. In fact, I even noted in my post that even a best case scenario for the Soviets see’s lots of damage done to it that would cripple it’s ability to defend against a second offensive, which the US could put together inside of a year: in 1952 alone the US built 644 weapons. The implication being anything less then a best-case would see the Soviets destroyed by the first offensive outright.

That's the difference from WWII to WWIII

Well, none of your examples were from either, so...

Cameras or Mk4 bomb?

Cameras can fly higher and faster then bombs.

And per my example from http://www.spyflight.co.uk/scul.htm with the whole Soviet network on alert, couldn't even vector on the lower performance RB-45 over the central/southern USSR

Save for all those times when the missions had to be aborted because it was obvious that the Soviets would pull off an intercept. Or because anti-aircraft fire had found them, meaning the Soviets didn’t even need to attempt a fighter intercept. Your article basically flat out ignores those. Even in a number of successful examples that I’m looking at, the Soviets would have made successful intercepts had they scrambled just a little earlier. Sounds like they could vector in just fine, it’s just their response time in some cases needed some work.
 
Last edited:
Regarding Turtledove's Hot War series, I never did understand how the Author could go so completely amnesiac in regards to the B-36. Bizarre.
 
Because of the limitations others mentioned in the thread, I find it more plausible that the Soviets would aim their bombs at forward US bases in Britain and Japan so as to degrade American strike capabilities, given that there was still an overall lack of intercontinental capabilities at the time, instead of sending them on one way suicide missions. Even then I’m dubious they’ll make it through Anglo-American air defenses. Soviet air defenses, OTOH, might be able to attrit the US’s own punch enough that the USSR is hurt but not outright destroyed, but that would only be a short respite until the US reassembles enough bombs and aircraft to have another go. And that’s best case for the Soviets.

Agreed! I would focus on destroying Britain in order to bomb them into surrender. Raids could be escorted by MiG-15's. That would remove the best NATO air and naval base in Europe. Continental Europe could be attacked with conventional bombers and the Red Army while bombing is the only way to hurt Britain. Putting Britain out of action might scare France and other European states into surrendering as there would be no sure knowledge on size of Soviet nuclear arsenal.

That's before USAF SAC destroys the Soviet Union, of course.
 
ObsessedNuker

Am trying to isolate some of your statements for response.

I wrote:
The North American B-45 aircraft is one of the last I'd select for an overflight, since it was relatively slow and had no real altitude capability. The missions were discussed in the unspecified reference (Paul Lashmar?) If so, the book is excellent as far as it goes, but says nothing about RAF Canberra bombers equipped with Spectre rocket engines climbing away from random MiG-15s, or operations conducted by 'Featherweight" B-36s which occasionally sighted MiGs far below them.

You Responded:
"Probably because none of those stories have any factual basis in reality. A simple glance at the specifications shows that any B-36 variant has a lower ceiling then the MiG-15. Even the highest altitude of the RB-36 “featherweights” I’ve heard of that was credible was around 50,000 feet, about the same as a ‘15."

I note that several of my Technical Reports to Wright Air Development Center, on dynamic performance analysis, written as far back as 1959, still retain their security status. Possibly some B-36 overflights are not known to the general public. Please share with us your thoughts on RB-57D overflights of the USSR. Fact or Fiction in your opinion?

You listed losses of US aircraft in the contexts of overflights of the Soviet Union-

My response:
Every one of the losses you chose took place at relatively low altitude over the Sea of Japan. Not one during a deep penetration of the USSR.

Your reply which was partly incomprehensible to me-

"Tgere’s actually no indications at what altitude these intercepts took place at. The location, Ingive, but then as previously noted recon missions were rather ultra-cautious and often aborted when it looked like the Russians might pull an intercept, so even that is not proof positive of inability to intercept."

I continue:
Further- Contemporary reports were clear that none of these intercepts involved flight over land. I concede that my assumption of relatively low altitude (compared with the altitudes during deep penetration flights which were the topic of discussion) was based only on familiarity with the topic.

If you like , we can discuss altitude performance of RB-36 variants relative to the Mig 15- for example wing loading, stall speed and demonstrated turn radii, all of which favor the '36.

Edit- While searching for a quick check of wing loading data, I just visited Wikipedia. The B-36 (under "Peacemaker") is credited with penetrations of the Soviet Union and -the RB-36-III variant- with demonstrating flight at 58,000 feet. For accuracy, they should have identified the aircraft as a "J" variant, and the altitude as being somewhat higher.

Dynasoar
 
Last edited:
Top