RAF Washington B Mk.1 - Whose bombs did they carry ?

[Richard E]

An idle question for the knowledgable on a Sunday morning:

 

The RAF operated the Boeing B-29A as the Washington B Mk.1 for a short time in the early 1950s.  Whilst they were never used operationally, were they equipped with UK or US pattern bombs and, presumably, were only intended to be used in the conventional bombing role ?

 

Many thanks 

 

[JohnT]

Richard

I have one to do in a project and all my stash in in storage along with my books.  I had a quick look online to see if I could fins your answer but didn't but I did find a mine of information here that I'd not come across before.  See this link to the newsletters on "The Washington Times".  I only looked at the first but will be having a longer read at them all later.  Looks like a wee goldmine of info for anyone Washington minded.

 

link:-

 

https://www.rafwatton.info/the-washington-a/

 

 

[TheyJammedKenny!]

Something tells me they were only cleared for U.S.-style conventional munitions, not British.  They were definitely not nuclear-capable.

[Richard E]

Thanks John, that looks like several hours reading.

 

One of my father's friends served his National Service at (I think) Marham during the Washington era - unfortunately I only discovered this fact at his funeral so like you I'm planning to build one - one day !

[rossm]

On 6/20/2021 at 10:59 AM, Richard E said:

An idle question for the knowledgable on a Sunday morning:

 

The RAF operated the Boeing B-29A as the Washington B Mk.1 for a short time in the early 1950s.  Whilst they were never used operationally, were they equipped with UK or US pattern bombs and, presumably, were only intended to be used in the conventional bombing role ?

 

Many thanks 

 

 

The Air Britain "Washington File" has a couple of photos of a Washington bombing up but I don't know whether the bombs shown are US or British. The general references in the text suggest the aircraft were very much US standard aircraft with little in the way of modifications - except presumably for the 192 Squadron ELINT examples based at Watton. The book also makes a woolly reference to the occasional appearance of covered items on bomb trollies and suggests they were nuclear weapons. While this is doubtless possible the text does not convince me that it was more than hearsay. It does say there are no reports these items formed part of the offensive load at any time.

[Graham Boak]

Late war US bombs were fitted with lugs for both the British  (hung below carrier) and USAAF (mounted on the side) methods, and there will have been lots of them left over in stores.  If they were fitted with the British tails they would be difficult to distinguish from their British equivalent for most of us.  Selwyn will know.

 

I must admit I'm not quite sure why, as many US fighter-bomber types carried the bombs underslung.  Maybe the lugs were slightly different.

[tonyot]

Hard to tell,.... but these look to have British tails,...... as for the bombs,.... US or British,.... not sure;

https://www.airliners.net/photo/UK---Air/Boeing-B-29A-Washington/0747306/L

 

 

[gingerbob]

On 6/21/2021 at 3:37 PM, rossm said:

 

The Air Britain "Washington File"... also makes a woolly reference to the occasional appearance of covered items on bomb trollies and suggests they were nuclear weapons. While this is doubtless possible the text does not convince me that it was more than hearsay. It does say there are no reports these items formed part of the offensive load at any time.

 

Another possible interpretation is that the "covered items on bomb trollies" were factual, but were to give the impression of nuclear weapons to prying eyes.

[dogsbody]

British bombs were connected to the bomb carriers by one lug. American bombs were connected to their bomb racks by two lugs. So the American-made bombs had two lugs on one side and only one lug on the other.

 

 

 

Chris

[Moggy]

On 21/06/2021 at 18:55, TheyJammedKenny! said:

Something tells me they were only cleared for U.S.-style conventional munitions, not British.  They were definitely not nuclear-capable.

 

They were nuclear capable. That's the only reason the RAF had them since the then RAF heavies could not carry  nukes (too small bomb bays)

The nukes belonged to the US - and were to be issued when needed. (make what you will of that  :)) )

 

Cheers, Moggy

 

[Graham Boak]

Your real-politik seems all too likely, but not all B-29s were nuclear capable. so just because the RAF had B-29 does not mean that they were capable nor cleared for them.  As the Lancaster was a suggested carrier for the US WW2 weapons, it is quite possible that the Lincoln was equally a possible carrier, given the requisite modifications and clearances.  Whether ay this stage the US had any spare nuclear weapons to pass to even their best ally at this time is arguable, but they could have been planning ahead.

 

The RAF would have been quite willing to get Washingtons anyway, given that the B-29 was described as flying faster, further and higher than the Lincoln with a larger payload.  I gather that at least some of these claims were found to be somewhat exaggerated once the aircraft were received and evaluated, but they were more comfortable to fly in and better armed.  The Lincoln was, to be honest, outdated on arrival, salvaged by lack of any realistic opposition or alternatives other than the B-29.

[ChocolateCrisps]

Tim Mason's The Cold War Years: Flight Testing at Boscombe Down 1945-1975 mentions that the Washington was one of two aircraft to serve in British use in that period never tested by the A&AEE, (the other being the Skyraider). That suggests to me that it had no equipment modifications for British use, so would therefore probably have only been able to use US weapons.

[rossm]

The Air Britain Washington File says the aircraft were supplied under MDAP - Mutual defense Aid Program - "which allowed the UK to operate American owned equipment before its eventual return or disposal at the discretion of the US government"  and were supplied from USAF stocks, mostly the desert but some from USAF units. The first four were delivered from the US direct to Marham with RAF roundels but USAF serials.

 

Later it says "The aircraft, electronic installations and spares were providied by America".

 

Two aircraft (WF497 & WF499) retained the black undersides they carried in USAF service and two (WF552 & WF547) had the elongated top turret.

 

The only modification mentioned is the fitting of "No Smoking" signs in the cockpit despite the retention of the ashtrays!

[Selwyn]

The Washington was introduced to the  RAF as a stop gap until the arrival of the v bombers.  I think it would be very unlikely that that the RAF would have had aquired any (non standard) US  bombs for the short period in service of this aircraft. especially as they still had large stocks of universal lug bombs left over from ww2  which would do the job.  The US and UK bombs were interchangable and both were often seen carried in mixed loads on wartime lancasters. 

 

Selwyn

[EwenS]

18 hours ago, Moggy said:

 

They were nuclear capable. That's the only reason the RAF had them since the then RAF heavies could not carry  nukes (too small bomb bays)

The nukes belonged to the US - and were to be issued when needed. (make what you will of that  :)) )

 

Cheers, Moggy

 

 

Britain received 87 Washingtons, mostly B-29A models, between March 1950 and about May 1951, none of which were nuclear capable. The last bombers were withdrawn in March 1954, after which only 192 squadron used them for RCM training until Feb 1958.

 

The B-29 required extensive modifications to the bomb bay to carry the large first generation nuclear weapons like “Little Boy” the Mark III & IV “Fat Man” weapons. You would be surprised at just how few of the nearly 4000 B-29 aircraft produced were converted to carry nuclear weapons. Those were:-

 

Silverplate conversions:- a single prototype converted 12/43-2/44 and 64 production aircraft between 1944 and 1946.

Saddletree conversions:- a further 140-150 B-29 conversions authorised in 1948, by which time the Silverplate numbers were down to 32 aircraft due to attrition, alongside B-50 and B-36 conversions under the same code name.

 

Then in late 1951 another 180 conversions were authorised, but these aircraft were seemingly sent direct to storage on completion as more modern types were then available. This was after deliveries to the RAF were complete.

 

The entire US nuclear stockpile in 1950 was only c300 bombs. From mid-1950 the US moved some non-nuclear A-bomb components to Britain. The idea was that with those heavy parts already in place the nuclear components could be quickly installed in the event of war, leading to early delivery by US aircraft. The first complete US nuclear weapons to be deployed in the U.K. did not arrive until late 1954, 2 years after Britain first tested its own A-bomb. It should be remembered that the US passed the Atomic Energy Act in 1946 (the McMahon Act) which prevented information in relation to nuclear matters being shared outside the USA. That only began to change in 1948 after the Soviets exploded their first A-bomb. It was not until later, around Oct 1958, that the US made its nuclear weapons available for dropping by the RAF and even then under strict US controls.

 

 

[TheyJammedKenny!]

6 hours ago, EwenS said:

the US passed the Atomic Energy Act in 1946 (the McMahon Act) which prevented information in relation to nuclear matters being shared outside the USA. That only began to change in 1948 after the Soviets exploded their first A-bomb. It was not until later, around Oct 1958, that the US made its nuclear weapons available for dropping by the RAF and even then under strict US controls.

Thanks.  I would have written this as well.  It's all described in Volume 1 of the UK's official history of its nuclear deterrent.  As I wrote earlier, the B-29s on loan to the UK were not nuclear-capable.  The U.S. did not even share its atomic war plans with the UK, thus making it impossible that British pilots would have flown atomic strikes, and it was not until 1954, at the tail end of the Washingtons' service as bomb-droppers in the RAF, that the U.S. adopted an atomic-based defense plan for NATO.

 

The photo from Airliners.net is excellent, by the way!

[jpk]

I think a really cool WIF scheme would be the Washingtons in bomber command camo scheme with WWII roundels. 

[rossm]

1 minute ago, jpk said:

I think a really cool WIF scheme would be the Washingtons in bomber command camo scheme with WWII roundels. 

 

Or to WHIF on the nuclear theme how about anti-flash white?

[TheyJammedKenny!]

8 hours ago, rossm said:

anti-flash white?

Now THAT would be cool, but only to a mid-way point along the fuselage.  The upper surfaces would be in natural metal, with normal color roundels on the upper wings, and pale roundels/codes on the fuselage sides and wing undersides.