Talk:Silverplate

Thin man?

"The project was initiated in October 1943 when Dr. Norman F. Ramsey, a member of the Los Alamos National Laboratory Group E-7, identified the B-29 Superfortress as the only airplane in the U.S. inventory capable of carrying either type of the proposed weapons shapes: the uranium 235 "gun-type fission weapon" shape and the plutonium implosion weapon shape"

• But the implosion weapon wasn't begun in earnest until April 1944, and before that it was thought than the Thin Man bomb was likely to be used. It seems unlikely to me that Ramsey would have known to focus on the uranium gun and plutonium implosion in October 1943. Somethings incorrect here, it might be in the original source. It would be interesting to know if the Silverplate people were trying to make it fit the long (18 ft—almost twice as long as Little Boy or Fat Man) Thin Man bomb as well. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 17:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually the wording was misleading. I eliminated the U-235 reference because it was in fact the Thin Man shape that Silverplate was looking to modify to. However the ovoid shape of the plutonium bomb had already been theorized and the delivery aircraft had to fit the bill. There were only two choices (the other was the B-32), since neither the B-24 nor the B-17 had the carrying capacity, range, and altitude requirements, and the B-36 was still on the drawing board.--Reedmalloy (talk) 10:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It would have been the Lancaster - that was considered prior to the B-29 being decided-upon. The Lancaster had a 33ft long bomb bay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.8 (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I see no reference provided to back up the extraordinary assertion that the British Lancaster bomber was seriously considered as an alternative to the B-29 Superfortress for the atomic attacks on Japan. See the posting on Greg’s Airplanes and Automobiles YouTube channel: The Lancaster and Atomic Bombs, My Response to Mark Felton, dated 24 Mar 2022. Jfanson (talk) 06:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Lead

A one-sentence lead seems awfully short for a 7-section article--could this be expanded to better summarize the contents? -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Because you demanded it! I've expanded the introduction. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Silverplate/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 01:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments

This is an important, but easily overlooked, topic, and it's good to see the work which has gone into this. I have the following comments and suggestions:

• "for training use" is a bit awkward ("for use in training" is a bit better, but I'd suggest rejigging this sentence to simplify things)
  • Y Re-worded this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• "Weight reduction was accomplished by removal of all gun turrets and armor plating" - can you explain why there was a need for this? (presumably due to the weight of the atomic bombs).
  • Y. Yes, that's right. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Was it also the case that the USAAF believed that the aircraft would be safe from Japanese attack? (presumably due to the poor state of the country's air defences, and inability to intercept B-29s operating at high altitudes).
  • Y Mostly the very high altitude, which was above the effective ceiling of Japanese flak. It was also hoped that small numbers of bombers would not be considered worth attacking. One B-29 suffered operational damage. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Were the new engines more reliable than the standard B-29 engines? (which was a weak point of the design, and something which was obviously problematic for aircraft which were expected to carry hugely expensive and strategically important weapons)
  • Y The early models had standard engines, which gave the same trouble. One Silverplate was written off after an engine fire in February 1945 destroyed much of the wing. But the later models delivered from July 1945 on had improved engines, which were far more reliable and gave much better performance. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• The article is a bit under-illustrated: you could include photos of how the atomic bombs were loaded into the aircraft, as well as more photos of the aircraft themselves - including the two survivors
  • Y Had to upload some more photographs for this purpose. Hate doing that, because it engages you in endless debate with the deletion brigade. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah, same. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Was the 97th Bombardment Wing issued with Silverplate-modified B-29s as part of taking on a nuclear weapon delivery role?
  • Y The 97th was formed in 1947, and seems to have training to bomb the USSR, but only had non-nuclear capable B-29s before it got the ones from the 509th. When reading accounts, it is work remembering that before 1949, the 509th was the only nuclear capable wing in the USAF. There was no need for more planes because there were still more planes than bombs. So in some places you may read about B-29s going to England in 1948; but they were not Silverplated. Anyhow, it was part of a number of wings that received nuclear capable bombers that years as the problems with nuclear weapons were ironed out after Operation Sandstone and the USAF atomic strike force expanded to ten wings. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Can a direct source link be provided for File:B-29-509-walker.jpg ? Nick-D (talk) 02:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • N No, I cannot find it. It does seem to be available on the original site any more. Do you want it removed? Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
    • No: it should be PD, and I've had similar problems with link rot from that source. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• All points addressed I hope. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, great work. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality, no copyvios, spelling and grammar:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Count of Silverplate aircraft

Both the Enola Gay and Bockscar articles say that there were only 15 Silverplate aircraft, but this article has a much higher number. Should those articles be updated? Ptomblin (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Silverplate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130323230514/http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=3358 to http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=3358
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120127130713/http://www.afhra.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080128-037.pdf to http://www.afhra.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080128-037.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Silverplate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222001701/http://www.foia.af.mil/shared/media/document/afd-091021-044.pdf to http://www.foia.af.mil/shared/media/document/afd-091021-044.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Silverplate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150805031520/http://www.foia.af.mil/shared/media/document/afd-091021-052.pdf to http://www.foia.af.mil/shared/media/document/afd-091021-052.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304113736/http://www.foia.af.mil/shared/media/document/afd-091021-047.pdf to http://www.foia.af.mil/shared/media/document/afd-091021-047.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304113854/http://www.foia.af.mil/shared/media/document/afd-091021-048.pdf to http://www.foia.af.mil/shared/media/document/afd-091021-048.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)