USAF Atomic Bomb Delivery Aircraft 1950s Film - B-29 B-36 B-45 B-47 B-50 B-52 F-84 F-86 KC-97 C-124
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 жов 2024
- This classic color movie from the early 1950s has been sanitized for public release. It depicts Cold War strategic and tactical USAF nuclear bombers including the B-29, B-36, B-45, B-47, B-50 and B-52 as well as F-84 and F-86 fighters. Support by KC-97 tankers and C-124 transports is shown. And here's a look at footage of QB-17 drones used in atomic tests: • B-17 drones and Operat...
Its hard to tell just how huge and heavy the B-36 is unless you stand beside one as I have. They are gigantic machines.
Yes, I've seen the ones at Castle Air Museum and Pima Air & Space Museum, and they're amazing machines. Just wish I could hear one for real.
Absolutely correct good sir, they are massive aircraft! Jame Stewart made an excellent picture in 1955 flying a B-36 Peacemaker. The movie was called Strategic Air Command.
That big bomb dropped in the middle of the film was the "Superoralloy bomb" in the "Ivy King" test, the biggest US pure fission bomb with a yield of 500 kt!
That was pretty fukkin cool.
Incredible
The B-47 is such a sleek and graceful looking plane.
It was a real handful to fly, though.
James Stewart made an excellent picture in 1955 called Strategic Air Command. In the film he is the pilot of a B-36 Peacemaker.
Yes -- I watched it on DVD the other day. And thank you for watching Airailimages!
One of my favorite movies.
From the archives, here's a vintage film depicting the XB-35 Flying Wing and the XB-36:
ua-cam.com/video/LOeh_ZDKo4E/v-deo.html
Awesome classic footage, it's unusual how they talk about SAC using nukes for close support of friendly troops, yeah right
Well, I was mistaken! The F86 did carry nuclear bombs! In addition, the B-57 and B-45 were also shown in this film as nuclear weapons carriers! Previously posted on a comment as I was not sure if they were ever called on to carry NUCS!
The XB-52 (in this film) was the first test plane and is included to signal the future. It would begin to replace the B-36 in sufficient numbers by 1956/57. Amazingly, the B-36 was not designed as an atomic bomber. But it soon filled that role like none before it.
The B-52 was not originally intended to be a conventional bomber but the Vietnam War changed that. And the the B-52 is still on active duty in 2019. granson
The Canberra that did the double crossing of the Atlantic was from the RAF. A little obsfuscation there from the script writers.
Never seen B-36 dropping conventional bombs, interesting
Never dropped a bomb in anger, only during testing and training.
5:23 demonstration of dumb bomb drop.
Rare footage, little has been discovered on where and when this was pulled off. I think it was White Sands or China Lake test ranges. Someone must have wanted to know how much iron bombs the B-36 could carry if we ran out of nukes, amusing. 85,000lbs of 500 and 1,000 lb demolition bonbs, now that's a big stick.
It could. And never dropped a single bomb in actual combat.
@@Nighthawke70
The Biggest stick !
Heaviest bombload to this day.
The nuclear powered test B-36 carried 110,000 lbs of lead shielding to protect the crew from the air-cooled reactor.
More atomic film from 1955; take a look at the QF-80 drones and the B-36 in this one from the Airailimages Channel: ua-cam.com/video/egfr9maXbmc/v-deo.html
"oh that Inflight insertion"
"If you miss, it's going to start hurtin'"
The plane she wont fly, if the bomb it does fry."
"You depend on that InFlight insertion."
Ooh, colour footage of the YB at Boeing Field!
I like how unassuming the title is:
‘It’s an Atomic Bomb [Delivery Aircraft].’
B-50 and B-45 were new to me. Never seen either of them
They are considered as interim jet aircraft, short-lived due to the rapidly advancing jet engine technology. The use of fighters and the "idiots loop", were examples of desperation of NATO and the USAF being prepared for the USSR threat. You can still see the B-36 (now WB-36) still in operation for the USAF, NASA and NOAA. They still pull clandestine operation over "hot" countries to provide ELINT and strategic reconnaissance.
B45 and that b57 is new to me
@@timpeterson2738 ... really???
Really???
@@timpeterson2738 The b 57 was the British Canberra reengineered for US production systems.
WOW CLOSE IN SUPPORT NUKES FOR FRIENDLY TROOPS.. What Will They Think 🤔 Of Next?? Holy SHITBALLS.. That’s Insane .. ANYONE?? ANYONE??
At 14:05 , The Mark-12 tactical fission bomb with a reported yield of 12 to 14 kilotons.
Several bombers I have never heard of before...cool! B-57 and B-45. Must have been made in small numbers top be so obscure.
The B-57 was a British design that was licensed to Martin. Called the Canberra, the "B" model was a "tandem seat" design. Some Canberras/B57s are still flying with agencies like NASA... They also flew in Viet Nam for the USAF.
The B-45 was built by North American as a replacement for their other medium propeller bombers, particularly the B-25 Mitchell. Called the "Tornado," I don't think it ever saw combat, but was the first jet powered bomber in USAF service.
@@pastorjerrykliner3162 The bomber variant never saw combat. But the reconnaissance version the RB-45 saw combat in Korea and also when the British flew them over the Soviet Union and East Germany during Operation Ju-Jitsu.
What you're seeing here is WHY we DIDN'T have world War 3 and we are here to remember that era. Without this major deterrent, given the character's running things, we could have easily had a major conflict complete with nuclear weapons and possible chemical/biologics
The pressure of films like this, is what drove the Soviets to spend with paranoid abandon and ultimately loose the Cold War.
TaxPayingContributor This Video Is Like An Instructional On How To Drop Our Nukes.. & It’s Ok We’ve Even Got Close In Supporting Nukes So,,, It’s Hunky Dori
@@donaldleavy4379 yeah I caught that bit of impractical disinfo. May still be tricking today's enemies.
I bet the XB-70 program sent the Soviets into double-vodka panic mode..
Caused the Mig 25 to be developed to try to intercept it.
Made obsolete by anti-aircraft missile technology before it could go into production. But that Mach 3 bomber still looks futuristic today.
80,000 ' cruise altitude where stars are visible at high noon.
Thanks for this and it amazes me the B-52 is still flying in 2023! ✈️
You are very welcome.
Want to do with stealth method you're going to have to use these planes B61-12 B-2 F-35 & F-22 the much bigger B83 will need F-22 Fighter & B-2 bomber because that won't fit inside F-35
1:46 - That is either a Mk-4 or a Mk-6 bomb, most likely a Mk-6.
B45 that is rare and forgotten. B57 British Canberra. Nukes nukes nukes we got'em.
chose the wrong British plane, should have took the Vulcan
@@andrewmckenna00 must admit for a British plane the Vulcan was pretty...
!0:45. Ivy King, November 1952.
The interesting thing about this film is that the B-52 is still in service while all the other aircraft were retired decades ago (Except for the two WB-57F Canberras that NASA still flies). The B-52 shown is either the XB-52A or the YB-52A.
10:15 - The 500KT TX-18F dropped in the King shot (K for kilotons) in Operation Ivy on November 1952.
That was the Operation Ivy "King" device being tested at 10:20. It was 500kt fission device tested after the infamous Ivy "Mike".
64curarine King was also the 'cleanest' bomb nearly all the fissionable material being used.
64curarine Was Mike The One They Misjudged?, The Yield , ? & Almost Cooked The Guys In The Bunker. Not To Mention Everyone On Those Observations Ships Got Free X-Rays That Day.. 15-20 miles Out Said They Felt Like Chickens In An Oven On The Decks
Legend813a oh yeah gotta Have Clean Nuclear Weapon.. After All . We’re Civilized
@@donaldleavy4379 That was Castle Bravo/ It turned oit to be 15 Megaton instead of the predicted 7.
@@donaldleavy4379 No that was the Bravo shot of operation Castle.
Was the jato on the b47 also because all the runways were made for ww2 planes with props and they didn’t require such a long runway unlike the early gen jets that needed alll the runways and then some so they had to make due I guess anyway till they were all rebuilt, I can’t even imagine how many tons of runways needed to be completely rebuilt
Your kids, their kids and even their kids, will be flying the B-52.
Six Turnin and Four Burnin
Interesting looking at those early Mk B52s. The pilots were sat one behind the other like cyclists on a tandem, rather than side by side in later models or civil airlines.
They switched to the side by side arrangement very early so the co-pilot and pilot could divide cockpit workload.
That was only in the XB-53 & YB-52 prototypes. SAC Commander Curtis Lemay specified side by side seating on production models
14:09 Dive bombing with a nuke. Well that's one way to increase accuracy. Might as well just fly it all the way to target impact.
Toss bombing... came in two variants... the "pull up to the correct angle and autorelease drop the bomb, turn away and run, and the second method "over the shoulder" where you basically overflew the target, pulled up into a huge loop, and the bomb automatically released at the correct time in the loop, plane completes the loop and goes full speed to escape, the bomb goes up in a long arc and then falls back in both cases, and detonates well behind the drop aircraft. Later! OL J R :)
Another winner Fred, thanks!
"The B-29 MEDIUM bomber"?!?!?!?! There was nothing "medium" about the B-29, it had a range of nearly 5600 miles!!!
The advent of the B36 made the B29 a medium bomber! It moved the goalposts!
Special delivery for Mr. Boris!
Anyone seen the non-sanitized version?
Early 1950s. Talking maybe 55 at the latest. With the B29 being the backbone still
"Atomic bomb delivery aircraft".
Sounds much like
"UPS delivery aircraft".
Yet, there's somewhat a difference between those.
as i watched i kept thinking "damn if it was the 50's i bet i could have _sold_ this film to the russians" ...
"The B-52, greatest of all jet bombers." Yep, pretty much
The B29 was a POS.
Sick
A crew of 16? That almost justifies a galley.
GOOD WORK!!!!!
An E-5 loading nukes??
Great video!!!! I have a question- Did the jet and prop engine on the B 36 burn same fuel??? It seems unlikely
Yes, the jets burned avgas. A B-36 mechanic told me they could see the results of leaded gas on the jet engnes.
Just for the B36 the General Electric J47 jet engines actually ran on gasoline versus the more typical jerosene-like JP-4 through JP-8 family of jet fuels
**(PILOTED)**
SalmonCreek'916- I too caught that “piloted”. Hummmmmm
@@Supernumerary ICBMs and intermediate range nuclear missiles on land and sea came soon after. That allowed for the so-called NUCLEAR TRIAD, meaning the USA had (and still has) the ability to attack with nuclear weapons from sea, air and land. This was called deterrence or "MAD" (mutually assured destruction) in the COLD WAR . Not to worry-the USSR was doing the same things at that time.
costco has a air force base ?
Scary...🤔
It's a shame we didn't use them while we were still the only ones that had them. Like with Japan only more so, we could've saved millions of lives.
Mat Helm and killed as many...
Its just as well no one did.
Conventional war is bad enough.
The A bombs dropped on Japan were done "to save american lives" and probably a lot of japanese lives as well as opposied to a conventional invasion. The fire bombing of Tokyo killed 100,000 in one night, possibly that would have had to have been repeated on other cities over the next 6 to 8 months plus another 1,000,000 casualties in an invasion.
Once that was done the genie was really out of the bottle, thankfully the decision-making system put in place and the moral compass of those with their finger on the trigger prevented their use.
So who do you advocate should have been murdered by nuclear bomb, while you americans were the only one who had it?
While you ponder that one, ever wonder why America isnt all that popular?
@@dhc4ever Ever notice how popular America is when some tyrant starts dropping bombs on your doorstep? But to leave Eastern Europe and part of Asia (N. Korea) under Stalin's control was at best negligent. Essentially Poland, which Stalin invade in a pact with Hitler. Wonder who's morals we were using then? But that allowed Mao to succeed in China, then according to Russian records, Stalin gave Mao the OK for Kim Sung to invade South Korea. They both were afraid America would use nukes, which is why they kept their early involvement secret. Stalin did so for the entire conflict. But the 100 thousand or so we would have had to nuke were Russians. So ignoring the millions dead under communism that would have been spared, how many Russian's do you think we'd have to nuke today to keep the promise made to Ukraine by NATO? You remember the promise that if they give up their Soviet era nukes, that NATO would protect them from Russia. Then there's the vast amount of wealth expended during the cold war. How many millions of lives has that cost us?
@@neildahlgaard-sigsworth3819 Would have only taken a few in the Polit Bureau. But no, it wouldn't have been near as many. I mean even with Stalin throwing unarmed conscripts at German guns in an attempt to slow them down, they only lost 11 million soldiers. At that point in time, the allies could of taken out key points and at most, maybe a million mostly military deaths. But more likely a number between 100 and 200 thousand. So at least 100 fold in lives saved, not to mention 40 years of forced labor misery.
@@MatHelm You do realise that WW2 started in Sept 39 NOT Dec 41.
You lot squeezed the English for all you could get, without getting involved, you squeezed the Japanese as well until you pissed them off enough to attack you. Yep your industries and numbers helped to end the war, you didnt do it on your own.
You did similar in WW1.
Could the allies have stopped the Russians in 1945?
Dispite what Patton thought I have to say it would have been a 50/50 proposition at best.
Thankfully that fight didnt happen.
Was communism moral? Depends on your location.
Is any nation standing over another moral. Depends on your point of view.
The germans attacked the Russians and paid very heavily for that, do you think the U.S. would have faired any better if they had attacked russia?
Yep nukem, problem solved, not quite, it would have ended up just like all the other wars the U.S. has been involved in apart from Grenada, an endless war of insergency.
So your foreign policy is?
6:35, 10:18, 13:44, 14:24,15:30
The B52s in this film are probably still in service
Actually, not even close. This film is from 1952 and the tandem cockpit goes with the prototypes XB-52 & YB-52. The only models flying today are 'H" models that entered service in 1960.
ahhhh atomic carpet bombing , the dream of any pilot :
Whilst I applaud the USA for their strategy during the Cold War, keeping it cold, I often wish it, the “bomb”,had never been invented, by anyone. Some will say that without it the Second World War would have dragged on costing many many more lives than it took, and that could well be true, I don’t know, one school of thought thinks that Japan were ready to surrender before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, we will never know, but with world tensions as they are today, I wonder if we all, or at least some of us, will live to regret it’s invention. Thanks for sharing this video very interesting and informative. 👍
Without atomic weapons we would have had WWIII. The only thing keeping the US and USSR from going directly at each other was the fear that it would escalate.
Despite the many problems created by them, atomic weapons actually did the job they were intended to do after 1950, and kept everyone who had them from using them.
Dj Phantom that is partially correct - only parts of the Japanese leadership wanted surrender. Itvwas only aftervthe Soviet Union invaded Manchuria did the Japanese surrender.
No bomb could very well mean even more nasty stuff like germ and chemical warfare
@@neildahlgaard-sigsworth3819 The Soviet invasion of Manchuria and the bombing of Nagasaki happened within hours of each other, on August 9th. It's difficult to know if the Japanese would have surrendered if Manchuria had NOT been invaded, but the combination of the two events convinced Hirohito. On August 14th, a coup was attempted against Hirohito, but failed. If it had been successful, Japan would not have surrendered.
A third nuclear weapon had been scheduled for release on August 19th.
insanity
And yet here we are. How would you have dealt with the reality of the situation? And no 20/20 hindsight please.
Peace through superior firepower.
Does anyone have a link to the "un-sanitized" version?
+john hebert If they did, they might be guilty of espionage. "Sanitized" means that classified material has been removed from it, so that it can be released publicly.
Post your address, we'll send somebody by.
The Army had field portable nukes. Backpack portable mushroom clouds.All decommissioned "we think"
Davy Crocketts, I believe.
The SADM.
Special atomic demolition manpack
57 lbs. I forget the yield, sub-kiloton, I think.
Davy Crockett was a nuclear bazooka. 10 ton yield, very dirty, radioactive-wise.
There is a film of RFK witnessing a test.
Sanitized means not showing the full destructive nature of the destinations shown here. You know, the vaporized bodies, chard remains, and people running around on fire but not dead yet!
And who would want to see that?
MORRIS REDDIC Rod would, it seems.
Neil Dahlgaard-Sigsworth Firefighters can be sick bastards sometimes...
A dose of reality can be a sobering thing.
Just nukem, rolls off the tongue really easily, statistics are merely numbers, human suffering on the scale of a nuclear attack is something else again.
There is on youtube the videos of the aftermath of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they arent pretty, they werent mean to be, they are quite sobering. Put yourself in the place of those effected by these bombs on the day these got dropped, and during the years afterwards.
Thankfully these weapons havent been used again.
I dont think the fire fighters a sick puppy at all, he did raise a very pertinent fact.
"And napalm sticks to kids!"
"Sanitized" for public release?? THAT is not good... History is only history if it's real, otherwise it's PC run amok. But nice flick anyway
JXCAP 11080
+art kish You are not wrong, but you may not understand how the Classification process works. In the mid 1980's I was writing Security Programs for some assorted "gizmos and gadgets" that went onto some of our Weapons Systems. As a DoD employee I had to make certain that nothing Classified got released to our Contractors and Sub-Contractors. Our basic rule was; "If in doubt CLASSIFY IT". See, if I didn't Classify something that WAS Classified I would lose my job and possibly face Federal Prosecution. The game is rigged to Over Classify. If you had my job YOU would have Classified a lot of stuff the same as I did. That's why I'm still with the DoD 35+ years. It's a living...
+randy109
Thanks Randy, I understand what you are saying. What I was talking about is the more recent editing to make it PC sanitized for present-day standards. ie referring to our then-enemies in disparaging terms, as if people can't put it in historical context and figure out what is currently appropriate and what is not. My guess is You-tube requires it or this film could not be posted here, unfortunately.
art
That has not been done with this footage. The name of the enemy wasn't mentioned as it was irrelevant. At the time (1950s) the US war plan was to use nuclear weapons against any aggressor.
With the massive cuts after WW2 and before the funding increase in the build up to Vietnam the military was in serious trouble to meet its strategic commitments and they were planning the large scale employment of nuclear weapons as a force multiplier (though the term didn't exist at the time) in order to have a small number of troops take out a far larger opposing force.
This included not just the air dropped bombing ideas shown here, but also nuclear tipped field artillery, ground launched rockets, and even nuclear tipped bazooka rounds and hand grenades (though the latter were never fielded, they were seriously considered) and for the navy nuclear tipped torpedoes fitted to submarines.
In the then-current war plans, all wars would be nuclear. There was no concept of "limited warfare" yet. You attack the USA, you get wiped off the face of the earth, such was the idea.
In fact, there was very serious consideration to use nuclear weapons in Korea. Had a few key UN successes there not happened, Pyong Yang and much of the rest of North Korea would have met the same fate as Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
As much as I enjoy watching these films, I wonder how much content should be available for the public. You rarely see the commies talking about their weapons systems, but that might just be because they're embarrassingly inferior.
Sanitized means classified material has been removed I.E. bomber ranges for B-47,57,52 and payload capacities. Stuff that wasnt already known such as number or aircraft etc.
Any guess as to what might be "sanitized" from a 50 year old video about an obsolete weapons system?
Anything that might give helpful clues to a nation that wants to build its first atomic bomb.
many of the principles, tactics, and some of the targets are still in use today. Heck, some of the weapons may still be in the stockpile today.
Notice how no details of actual weapons are shown, any close up film has the bombs hidden under tarps. This is no coincidence.
Nuclear weapons aren't that hard to design (the main difficulty is acquiring the fissile material and the machinery to accurately enough machine the components), you want to keep as much information out of the hands of those who would design them as you can.
Perhaps a country 50 years behind us technologically would find them helpful. Something to consider is when these weapons were being developed, _everything_ about them was being developed, metals, electronics, fabricating methods, tools. Many of the materials, tools and techniques have become common outside of their original purpose, high temperature metals that retain their strength for instance. Someone who is "50 years behind" does not need to invent the materials for instance. What I'm writing is not a full blanket by any stretch, but if even half of the problems can be solved "off the shelf" then they aren't really 50 years behind.
@@jwenting You would be surprised by the amount of very specific material relating to the manufactory, component technical info, tolerances and the physical dynamics of such that is available in the public domain. Even acquiring a sufficient quantity of weapons grade HEU would not be beyond a properly connected & dogged individual. Plus the very specific bridgewire detonators & neutron generators could be acquired regardless of them being strictly regulated. I have a troublesome tree stump in my garden and am thinking about putting a device together myself to deal with it.
Obsolete weapon systems? The B-52 is still fying today. Anyways this was problably sanitized way back in the 50s to remove classified data such as ranges, flight ceilings, and numbers of certain aircraft