German Bomber modified for A Bomb Delivery

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Luftwaffe air units and general discussions on the Luftwaffe.
User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8584
Joined: 21 Sep 2005 21:46
Location: Michigan

Re: German Bomber modified for A Bomb Delivery

Post by LWD » 29 Aug 2010 15:47

Kiwikid wrote:
LWD wrote:
Kiwikid wrote: ... Caesium 135 only comes from nuclear reactors. It is never formed by nuclear explosions. ...
Source please.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon-135

Caesium -135 derrives almost exclusively from decay of Xenon 135 which itself only comes from decay in nuclear reactors. 95% of 135Xe itself originates from the radioactive decay of Iodine 135 (with 6-7 hour half life). Xenon 135 has a 9 hour half life. Xe-135 first transmutes to 136Xe before decaying back to 135Cs. This decay chain is too complex and time consuming to occur in a nuclear explosion.

To obtain Caesium 135 you must first irridate Iodine 135 for about 40-50 hours. No nuclear explosion lasts for 40-50 hours. A nuclear blast is over in micro-seconds.

Caesium 135 for all practical purposes is unobtainable from direct transmutation of heavy elements in a nuclear explosion because it's cross section is too small.

If there is no Caesium 135 at Ohrdruf then ipso facto it is not fall out from Chernobyl.
...
I suggest you read a bit more closely.

From your source.
135Xe is an unstable isotope of xenon with a half-life about 9.2 hours. 135Xe is a fission product of uranium
and
Thus, in an operating nuclear reactor, 135Xe is being continuously produced. 135Xe has a very large neutron absorption cross-section, so in the high neutron flux environment of a nuclear reactor core, the 135Xe soon absorbs a neutron and becomes stable 136Xe. Thus, in about 50 hours, the 135Xe concentration reaches equilibrium where its creation by 135I decay is balanced with its destruction by neutron absorption.
The implication is that it is found in lower concentrations in reactors than in bomb products. Indeed if you look at http://www.evs.anl.gov/pub/doc/Cesium.pdf
it states that Ce-135 is produced from the fission of Uranium no reactor required.

User avatar
Ironmachine
Member
Posts: 5647
Joined: 07 Jul 2005 10:50
Location: Spain

Re: German Bomber modified for A Bomb Delivery

Post by Ironmachine » 29 Aug 2010 18:11

Kiwikid, to dispel all doubts, here are a couple of references far more reliable than wikipedia that clearly show that your statement that Caesium 135 "...is never formed by nuclear explosions" is utterly false:
Radioactive cesium isotopes (137Cs, 135Cs, and 134Cs) are produced by the fission of actinide nuclides. The vast majority of radio-cesium entered the environment due to atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons (mainly during the late 1950’s and early 1960’s) and the occasional release from nuclear reactors like the 1986 Chernobyl accident.
Production Ratio of Nuclear Fallout 137Cs/135Cs, by Hsin-Wei Chen, Typhoon Lee, Teh-Lung Ku and J. P. Das
Chinese Journal of Physics Vol. 46, Nº 5, pg. 560 (October 2008)
The noble gases and particulate radionuclides from nuclear explosions would have higher densities at the test site. Some noble gases could escape from the explosive chimney to the atmosphere through venting or through fractures and faults in the rock created by the explosion. Examples are Kr-89, Xe-133, Xe-133 m (metastable Xe-133), Xe-135 and Xe-137. The detection of these noble gases are also radioactive. For example, Sr-89, Cs-135 and Cs-137. They would remain near the test site because their precursors have short half lives and can not travel very far. The inspection team could trace the event by detecting Sr-89, Cs-135 and Cs-137.
Analysis of Fission Products - A Method for Verification of a CTBT During On-Site Inspections, by Li, Bin
Science & Global Security, 1998, Volume 7, pp.195-207

Simon Gunson
Member
Posts: 779
Joined: 23 Mar 2004 00:25
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: German Bomber modified for A Bomb Delivery

Post by Simon Gunson » 25 Sep 2010 00:19

LWD wrote:
Kiwikid wrote:
LWD wrote:
Kiwikid wrote: ... Caesium 135 only comes from nuclear reactors. It is never formed by nuclear explosions. ...
Source please.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon-135

Caesium -135 derrives almost exclusively from decay of Xenon 135 which itself only comes from decay in nuclear reactors. 95% of 135Xe itself originates from the radioactive decay of Iodine 135 (with 6-7 hour half life). Xenon 135 has a 9 hour half life. Xe-135 first transmutes to 136Xe before decaying back to 135Cs. This decay chain is too complex and time consuming to occur in a nuclear explosion.

To obtain Caesium 135 you must first irridate Iodine 135 for about 40-50 hours. No nuclear explosion lasts for 40-50 hours. A nuclear blast is over in micro-seconds.

Caesium 135 for all practical purposes is unobtainable from direct transmutation of heavy elements in a nuclear explosion because it's cross section is too small.

If there is no Caesium 135 at Ohrdruf then ipso facto it is not fall out from Chernobyl.
...
I suggest you read a bit more closely.

From your source.
135Xe is an unstable isotope of xenon with a half-life about 9.2 hours. 135Xe is a fission product of uranium
and
Thus, in an operating nuclear reactor, 135Xe is being continuously produced. 135Xe has a very large neutron absorption cross-section, so in the high neutron flux environment of a nuclear reactor core, the 135Xe soon absorbs a neutron and becomes stable 136Xe. Thus, in about 50 hours, the 135Xe concentration reaches equilibrium where its creation by 135I decay is balanced with its destruction by neutron absorption.
The implication is that it is found in lower concentrations in reactors than in bomb products. Indeed if you look at

http://www.evs.anl.gov/pub/doc/Cesium.pdf

it states that Ce-135 is produced from the fission of Uranium no reactor required.

Your last comment is an over simplification Larry. Only 5% of Xenon-135 comes from direct fission and 95% from decay in a reactor. Caesium-135 is one of two decay products possible from Xenon-135.

These Xenon isotopes form one of two ways:

(1) Splitting of a larger atom into two parts (direct fission)
(2) Decay from another product (being more numerous in a reactor)
I suggest you read a bit more closely.

From your source:
135Xe is an unstable isotope of xenon with a half-life about 9.2 hours. 135Xe is a fission product of uranium

I was perfectly aware of that Larry before I posted. Thanks for catching up. I referred to Xenon-135 because it has two decay products relevant to this debate, Xenon 136 and Caesium 135.

...So we are finally agreed that Xenon 135 is a fission product of Uranium?
That means it does not occur naturally. Thus it why it is the key indicator which PTB should have looked for at Ohrdruf to distinguish whether radiation at the site was caused by Chernobyl or not.

PTB did not mention Xenon decay products in it’s report.

What you don’t appreciate Larry is in any nuclear explosion, for example Uranium235, not all fissile material is combusted by fission.

Take the Hiroshima blast where “Little Boy” contained 60kg, but only 700grams is estimated to have undergone fission before the Uranium at it’s core was physically scattered.

That is precisely why only 5% of Xenon 135 comes from direct Fission (ie inelastic scatter):

95% of Xenon -135 comes from decay of Iodine-135 and that comes from build up in a nuclear reactor.

http://www.tpub.com/content/doe/h1019v2 ... 9v2_60.htm

The Chernobyl reactor explosion, was caused initially by a sudden shut down of power and the continued production of Xenon-135. An inexperienced control room crew removed control rods because they could not understand what was happening, so at the time of the Chernobyl blast Xenon-135 levels had quadrupled their normal presence in that reactor.

Had the radioactivity at Ohrdruf been associated with Chernobyl, Xenon-135 would have been everywhere and yes, as you note, it decays to stable long lasting Xenon -136 which ought to still be there if it was Chernobyl fall out, but it isn’t present at Ohrdruf.
The implication is that it is found in lower concentrations in reactors than in bomb products.


Your inference is wrong for all of the reasons stated above. Only 5% of all Xenon-135 is produced in direct fission (ie bombs etc) and 95% from decay of Iodine-135 taking many hours in a reactor (40-50) before decaying to Xenon-135.

A bomb however being instantaneous does not provide the conditions for breeding Iodine-135 over several hours and subsequent decay to Xenon-135.

Simon Gunson
Member
Posts: 779
Joined: 23 Mar 2004 00:25
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: German Bomber modified for A Bomb Delivery

Post by Simon Gunson » 25 Sep 2010 00:27

Ironmachine wrote:Kiwikid, to dispel all doubts, here are a couple of references far more reliable than wikipedia that clearly show that your statement that Caesium 135 "...is never formed by nuclear explosions" is utterly false:
Radioactive cesium isotopes (137Cs, 135Cs, and 134Cs) are produced by the fission of actinide nuclides. The vast majority of radio-cesium entered the environment due to atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons (mainly during the late 1950’s and early 1960’s) and the occasional release from nuclear reactors like the 1986 Chernobyl accident.
Production Ratio of Nuclear Fallout 137Cs/135Cs, by Hsin-Wei Chen, Typhoon Lee, Teh-Lung Ku and J. P. Das
Chinese Journal of Physics Vol. 46, Nº 5, pg. 560 (October 2008)
The noble gases and particulate radionuclides from nuclear explosions would have higher densities at the test site. Some noble gases could escape from the explosive chimney to the atmosphere through venting or through fractures and faults in the rock created by the explosion. Examples are Kr-89, Xe-133, Xe-133 m (metastable Xe-133), Xe-135 and Xe-137. The detection of these noble gases are also radioactive. For example, Sr-89, Cs-135 and Cs-137. They would remain near the test site because their precursors have short half lives and can not travel very far. The inspection team could trace the event by detecting Sr-89, Cs-135 and Cs-137.
Analysis of Fission Products - A Method for Verification of a CTBT During On-Site Inspections, by Li, Bin
Science & Global Security, 1998, Volume 7, pp.195-207

I was in error about the creation of Caesium 135 which is about 6% of the fissionable yield whilst Caesium 137 is 7%. You are correct. I don't merely read Wikipedia by the way. Thank you for providing us with these extra sources.

Thus citing from your sources, Cs-135 is harder to detect than Cs-137, which your report notes in a table at page 200 has gamma emissions too low to detect. It also observes:
Some isotopes (e.g.,Cs-135) have very low emission rate for detection. Spectrometers therefore provide a good way to measure their abundances.
Since Cs-137 which is a fission product of nuclear explosions was detected at Ohrdruf, why did the PTB investigators not use mass spectrometry to check for Cs-135, since the report findings can neither rule it in nor out?

I still stand by the observation made earlier that the PTB report fails to make mention of Xenon -135 or it’s decay products. If they are not present, then the fall out at Ohrdruf was not from Chernobyl.

There are two decay products from Xenon 135:
Xenon-135 which does not capture a neutron (in a reactor) decays into Caesium 135.
Xenon-135 which does capture a neutron (in a reactor) becomes stable Xenon-136

The same rule applies however that only 5% comes from direct fission and 95% from decay chain in a nuclear reactor. If such decay products were found at Ohrdruf in large quantities then you could confidently say the cause was Chernobyl, but the PTB report does not mention them. It only mentions Cs-137 and Cobolt 60.
P.201 states that:

The third step would be to estimate the abundances of the isotopes in the samples by measuring the intensities of the characteristic radiation. Based on the principles described earlier, we could also determine the time when the fission occurs if the analyzed isotopes are uniformly mixed.
Your source indicates that had a more thorough investigation been performed it could have dated the creation of radio-nuclides present. The fact it failed to apply proper analysis means that the results cannot conclusively rule an explosion in 1945 in or out.

Your source commented that:
P.200;

Every branch of beta decay has a continuous spectral energy distribution with a maximum energy cut off. The spectra of the beta decays of most isotopes in the fission products are well known. Therefore, it is also possible to estimate the relative amounts of isotopes in the fission products by measuring the combined beta spectrum...

...After we get the relative amounts of two radio nuclides in a sample by measuring the intensities of their characteristic radiation, we can then derive the time of the fission from equations (2) or (3).
So why did PTB perform inadequate analysis and provide an inconclusive result?

User avatar
Ironmachine
Member
Posts: 5647
Joined: 07 Jul 2005 10:50
Location: Spain

Re: German Bomber modified for A Bomb Delivery

Post by Ironmachine » 25 Sep 2010 07:55

Kiwikid wrote:Since Cs-137 which is a fission product of nuclear explosions was detected at Ohrdruf, why did the PTB investigators not use mass spectrometry to check for Cs-135, since the report findings can neither rule it in nor out?
Do you have a full copy of the PTB report or are you working with the press report quoted previously? Unless you have the full report, this is pure speculation on your part.
Kiwikid wrote:I still stand by the observation made earlier that the PTB report fails to make mention of Xenon -135 or it’s decay producs. If they are not present, then the fall out at Ohrdruf was not from Chernobyl.
Let's see if I'm getting this right. Are you still saying that Xe-135 or its decay products are not produced in a nuclear explosion? 8O
Kiwikid wrote:There are two decay products from Xenon 135:
Xenon-135 which does not capture a neutron (in a reactor) decays into Caesium 135.
Xenon-135 which does capture a neutron (in a reactor) becomes stable Xenon-136
The same rule applies however that only 5% comes from direct fission and 95% from decay chain in a nuclear reactor. If such decay products were found at Ohrdruf in large quantities then you could confidently say the cause was Chernobyl, but the PTB report does not mention them. It only mentions Cs-137 and Cobolt 60.
I really don't fully understand what you are trying to say here, could you please explain it more clearly? Because Xe-135 which does not capture a neutron decays into Caesium 135 and Xe-135 which does capture a neutron becomes stable Xenon-136, be it in a reactor or in a nuclear explosion. And in fact, given that both Cs-135 and Xe-136 both come from Xe-135, the more that is produced of one the less that is produced of the other, so I can't understand the "If such decay products were found at Ohrdruf in large quantities..." part of your argument.
Kiwikid wrote:Your source indicates that had a more thorough investigation been performed it could have dated the creation of radio-nuclides present. The fact it failed to apply proper analysis means that the results cannot conclusively rule an explosion in 1945 in or out.
You are jumping too quickly to your desired conclusion. My source indicates that it may be possible to date the creation of the nuclides present, but it does not says that you can't rule out the explosion by other measurements. Not to mention the fact that nobody has shown that they failed to apply "proper analysis".
Kiwikid wrote:So why did PTB perform inadequate analysis and provide an inconclusive result?
Inconclusive for you it may be, but for me (and I think that for many other posters in this thread) the press report is conclusively enough. But of course, the PTB work, as phylo_roadking said in a previous post, was paid for by the ZDF television channel and was forwarded in whole to them, along with all measurements... etc. So how can you say it was an inadequate analysis that provided an inconclusive report? Have you seen it? May it be ZDF has zero interest in publicing the results, because it will render their documentary worthless?

Simon Gunson
Member
Posts: 779
Joined: 23 Mar 2004 00:25
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: German Bomber modified for A Bomb Delivery

Post by Simon Gunson » 18 Dec 2021 08:48

REFERENCE TO THE He177 v38 can be found in a POW "Interrogation " report SRA 4394, from September 1943 identifying the aircraft was especially modified to carry a bomb called 76 Zentner
Image


Image

and another POW report SRA 4450

Image

User avatar
kfbr392
Member
Posts: 472
Joined: 24 Jun 2004 16:05
Location: Germany

Re: German Bomber modified for A Bomb Delivery

Post by kfbr392 » 18 Dec 2021 09:25

1 Zentner = 50kg, or 110lbs.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zentner

So 76 Zentner = 3800kg. Looks like they planned to develop a SD 3800 or a SC 3800, then.

Simon Gunson
Member
Posts: 779
Joined: 23 Mar 2004 00:25
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: German Bomber modified for A Bomb Delivery

Post by Simon Gunson » 18 Dec 2021 09:45

phylo_roadking wrote:
14 Mar 2010 04:50
Again, for the 5th time, please post that material.
And the original and author of your material is....?
Image

here;s hoping,kannst du Deutsch sprechen?


https://books.google.de/books?id=ssngup ... &q&f=false

Simon Gunson
Member
Posts: 779
Joined: 23 Mar 2004 00:25
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: German Bomber modified for A Bomb Delivery

Post by Simon Gunson » 18 Dec 2021 09:51

kfbr392 wrote:
18 Dec 2021 09:25
1 Zentner = 50kg, or 110lbs.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zentner

So 76 Zentner = 3800kg. Looks like they planned to develop a SD 3800 or a SC 3800, then.
Mentioned in Montgomery's war diary as being recovered from Goslar on 26 April 1945 by the US 9th Army , or so I am assured by Major Keith Sanders (retired). who tipped me off about the RAOC Gazette October 1946.
Image

Simon Gunson
Member
Posts: 779
Joined: 23 Mar 2004 00:25
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: German Bomber modified for A Bomb Delivery

Post by Simon Gunson » 19 Dec 2021 23:38

kfbr392 wrote:
18 Dec 2021 09:25
1 Zentner = 50kg, or 110lbs.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zentner

So 76 Zentner = 3800kg. Looks like they planned to develop a SD 3800 or a SC 3800, then.
It makes no sense that Germany would invest so much effort that they would enlarge the bomb bay of one specific He177 bomber, which required development of specific engines just to drop 3,800kg of "Trialen 105"; 40/60 Amatol mixture of RDZ, TNT, especially when the prisoner in SRA 4450,
POW #1340 said: 76 Zentner could "destroy a town" until there "wasn't a soul left there."

POW #1340 expressed a fear that if Germany used a bomb so powerful the Allies would retaliate with gas.

3,800kg of high explosive just does not cut it. British developed the 10,000kg/ 22,000lb Grand Slam and that bomb did not destroy whole towns killing every soul.

Image

British Grand Slam

In SRA.4394, POW #138 describing 76 Zentner said it was "far too big" and offered his personal opinion
"it is utter nonsense to use a bomb of that kind against "big cities"

One does not use a single huge high explosive bomb against big cities.

Whatever else it was, 76 Zentner was not 3,800kg of high explosive!

Worth noting the Little Boy bomb dropped on Hiroshima weighed 4,400kg

Image

ewest89
Member
Posts: 18
Joined: 04 Oct 2021 20:11
Location: United States

Re: German Bomber modified for A Bomb Delivery

Post by ewest89 » 20 Dec 2021 19:00

Simon,

The weight of Fat Man is given as 4,670 kg while Little Boy comes in at 4,400 kg. Why the great weight? Critical mass is far below that, and even adding a detonator would not add much, especially in a "gun-type" design.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 2645
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: German Bomber modified for A Bomb Delivery

Post by T. A. Gardner » 21 Dec 2021 00:18

ewest89 wrote:
20 Dec 2021 19:00
Simon,

The weight of Fat Man is given as 4,670 kg while Little Boy comes in at 4,400 kg. Why the great weight? Critical mass is far below that, and even adding a detonator would not add much, especially in a "gun-type" design.
Because on the earliest US nuclear weapons there was a heavy armored shell placed around the device to make the bomb flak damage proof. This amounted to about half the weight of the weapon.

Simon Gunson
Member
Posts: 779
Joined: 23 Mar 2004 00:25
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: German Bomber modified for A Bomb Delivery

Post by Simon Gunson » 24 Dec 2021 06:50

ewest89 wrote:
20 Dec 2021 19:00
Simon,

The weight of Fat Man is given as 4,670 kg while Little Boy comes in at 4,400 kg. Why the great weight? Critical mass is far below that, and even adding a detonator would not add much, especially in a "gun-type" design.
Good question Ed, the Tungsten Carbide tamper likely accounts for the extra weight in addition to 64.15kg HEU

Image

tungsten Carbide came from Portugal in WW2, manufactured by Carballoy division of GEC, who supplied more Tungsten Carbide to Germany in WW2 than they did to the Allies, sold to the Nazis at lower prices too!

Simon Gunson
Member
Posts: 779
Joined: 23 Mar 2004 00:25
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: German Bomber modified for A Bomb Delivery

Post by Simon Gunson » 24 Dec 2021 10:07

ewest89 wrote:
20 Dec 2021 19:00
Simon,

The weight of Fat Man is given as 4,670 kg while Little Boy comes in at 4,400 kg...
Image

ED, are you familiar with Peter Brill , the former He-177 pilot who disclosed in 2005 from Spain that he was one of six pilots trained for the mission to bomb New York?
At the time I cut & pasted an article published in German about his recollections, but I can't find the same article now.
Here's an article in Spanish:

https://www-abc-es.translate.goog/cultu ... _tr_pto=sc

In the translated German article quotes Brill saying:

Aircraft and crews have been made available for this since 1943. Aircraft and crews have been made available since 1943. Peter Brill reported on April 2, 2005 at a conference in Sabadell about his service as an Air Force pilot that he was selected for a special mission after completing his course at a flight school. April 2005 at a conference in Sabadell [Spain] on his service as an Air Force pilot that he is after the end of his course at a flight school for a special selected. He was to be trained in astronavigation for He-177s, which were intended to bomb New York.

The contemporary witness AK saw four He-177s standing in Sprottau when he was drafted into the Air Force at the end of 1943 and was supposed to be trained as a fighter pilot. The machines were intended to fly non-stop to New York. The machines, hidden under camouflage nets, would have had a huge bomb bay in which there would have been room for a car. Two propeller turbines with counter-rotating four-blade propellers, together with an increased fuel supply, should ensure sufficient range and speed.

(Sprottau is southeast of Berlin & was annexed as part of Poland after WW2)

What happened to the "He-177" American bombers from Sprottau is uncertain. According to the information provided by the witness, they probably remained in Sprottau and, if not destroyed beforehand, fell into the hands of the Russians. He himself saw the four aircraft for the last time in the summer of 1944, when he was assigned to the paratroopers. The question remains whether this is already the.

Operation machines has acted. What was up with the propeller turbines has not been clarified either. The modern He-277 B-5 / R2 was also supposed to fly to America on a one-way flight. Up to July 3, 1944, nine copies of the high-altitude long-range bomber powered by four DB603 or Jumo 222 (later retrofitting) could still be produced. At a service ceiling of 15,000 m, the> He-277 B-5 <was able to transport 2500 kg bombs over 6000 km (without additional tanks) and easily reach 700 km / h in orbit flight. [ 700km/hr =378 Knots]

The contemporary witness AK saw four He-177s standing in Sprottau when he was drafted into the Air Force at the end of 1943 and was supposed to be trained as a fighter pilot. The machines, hidden under camouflage nets, would have had a huge bomb bay in which there would have been room for a car. The modern He-277 B-5 / R2 should also fly to America in one-way flight. Up to July 3, 1944, nine copies of the high-altitude long-range bomber powered by four DB603 or Jumo 222 (later retrofitting) could still be produced. At a service ceiling of 15,000 m, the> He-277 B-5 <was able to transport 2500 kg bombs over 6000 km (without additional tanks) and easily reach 700 km / h in orbit flight.

He should be in astro navigation for He-177 training, which were designed, to bomb New York. The witness saw four AK-177 He is in Sprottau, the end of 1943 when he was collected on Air Force fighter pilot and to be trained. The hidden Tarnnetz machine had an enormous bomb bay has in place a car would have been. Two propeller turbines with counter Vierblattpropellern should be read in conjunction with oversized fuel supply for sufficient range and speed of care. What to do with the> I-177 <-bombers from America Sprottau happened is uncertain.According to the witnesses they were probably in Sprottau and fell, unless they were destroyed before the Russians in their hands. He himself saw the four aircraft for the last time in the summer of 1944, when he was one of the paratroopers was abkommandiert. The question remains whether it is already here to use the machines acted. What are the propeller turbines to be had, is not clarified

According to America in> Disposable flight <should be the modern> He-277 B-5/R2 <fly. July 1944 were nine copies of the four-DB603 or Jumo 222 (later retrofitting) driven Höhenfernbombers produced. With a service ceiling of 15000 m was> He-277 B-5 <2500 kg bombs over 6000 km (without extra tanks) in the transport and rail inclination flight easily 700 km / h reached.
Quote ends.

So it seems this V38 prototype with a 4.6m long bomb bay for the Atomic bomb was not alone but belonged to an AK177 variant lost to history

Image

Simon Gunson
Member
Posts: 779
Joined: 23 Mar 2004 00:25
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: German Bomber modified for A Bomb Delivery

Post by Simon Gunson » 24 Dec 2021 11:10

Francis wrote:
15 Apr 2005 09:38
Hi all
Its been reported in several books I have read that at the end of WWII a German bomber (He 177) was found at Letov in the Czech republic. The bomber had been modified with an enlarged bomb bay, blast screens and additional features for high altitude flying. Authors have reported that this bomber was infact modified to carry the German Atomic bomb. I've never been able to find any additional information on this bomber and would be greatful if someone out there could tell me more about it.

Many thanks
Frank
Image

Image

Francis these two POW reports from Kew PRO which link a bomb called 76 Zentner with an He177 having an enlarged bomb bay.

This report SRA. 4450 notes 76 Zentner was a bomb that could destroy a whole town "so there wasn't a soul left there."

Image

SRA. 4394 links 76 Zentner with a 177 which had a specially enlarged bomb bay:

Image

Pilot Peter Brill revealed in 2005 that these modified aircraft were called AK177 and they had contra rotating four blade propellers, giving them improved fuel range and better ceilings.

Return to “Luftwaffe air units and Luftwaffe in general”