Why wasnt the B-36 used in Korean Police Action?

[flyingheritage]

B-29 Silverplates and B-50 Supertfotress were the leading components of SAC's strategic and tactical strike of SAC in late 1940s.

The B36 Peacemaker took over but ironically was never used in Korea as it was deemed not its war... even for strategic issues such as a large scale war...

What information is available to predict if B36 would of survived in Korean airspace? Could they done well again the MiG-15?

Their load of around 40,000lb of coventional bombs would of done well for cell strikes and saved B-29 for tactical bomber strikes in effect.

The USAF never was fully prepared for Korea but did well. Tis a shame that FEAF and 5th AF was given a lower priority than the Cold War German frontier..... hard to understand that mentality.

[Holedigger]

Part of that decision not to use the B-36 would have been trying not to escalate the "police" action by provoking China too much. This was a Strategic weapons system and its use would have been seen by China as a big step.

[flyingheritage]

Well i beg to wonder didnt the US govt EVER think that 1m Chincoms coming thru the border into NK posed a "strategic threat"?

My grandfather fought in a famous battle in Korea in 1953 with 3RAR and said at one stage he saw he assume 10,000+ of the Chincoms running at the Aussie's position.

He was scared witless but fought on...

Now if a B-36 had been on station and been able to release a load on that strategic threat ----- 10,000 less chincoms would of saved some Aussie and US lives in that battle.

My grandfather got wounded in the hip by a mortar shell and was sent to a hospital.
He retired from army a few months later and went to work as a nurse.

[Holedigger]

I am quite sure they were worried. Nuclear forces alert levels were stepped up and I would bet the contingency plans for nuking the area were hotly debated. The biggest problem was, we didn't want to take that step and at the same time, we did not have the "boots on the ground" to effectively hold the line. Same reason the UN fails to react properly today!

[ww2John]

Have no knowledge of this B36 use, but, IMHO, it ws a nuclear delivery system. Taking off that duty and putting it into a theatre of war, when the perceived/real threat of the USSR was its reason for existence wouldn't be good strategy or good tactics, would it?
Just asking...

[davidbray]

I would venture a guess that it was due to the fact that the B-36 at that time was the only nuclear deterrent bomber in the US inventory. In that era taking the aircraft away from its nuclear mission would have been seen as a huge mistake.

[APG85]

The B-36 was, by design, the first intercontinental strategic nuclear bomber and was not suited for short range convenional bombing in Korea. The B-29 was better suited until a smaller jet bomber could come off the drawing boards...

[jet1]

...than there is in winning a war. If we would have popped one nuke in korea it is very possible that vietnam would have never happened and our world would be a more peaceful place. It is a toss-up but I doubt that any of the commies would have done anything as THEY knew they were in last place in the techno wars. they did a good job tricking us into thinking otherwise....too bad hind sight is 20 20

flame suit is ON! (and 100% effective!)

[Robbie Roberts]

...than there is in winning a war. If we would have popped one nuke in korea it is very possible that vietnam would have never happened and our world would be a more peaceful place. It is a toss-up but I doubt that any of the commies would have done anything as THEY knew they were in last place in the techno wars. they did a good job tricking us into thinking otherwise....too bad hind sight is 20 20

flame suit is ON! (and 100% effective!)

At first, I had other thoughts, but I think I may tend to agree with this position somewhat... Mainly for the phrase "If we would have popped one nuke in Korea it is very possible that Vietnam would have never happened and our world would be a more peaceful place"

Robbie

[Second Air Force]

Don't forget that SAC moved B-50s to Anderson on Guam during 1951, along with some KB-29s. Having those nuclear-capable mediums on Guam was likely enough of a deterrent that the B-36s didn't need to be forward-deployed.

Scott

[SPANNERmkV]

My Dad flew B-36's for a short while before B-47s became operational.
He said they didn't have enough serviceable propellors to maintain the mission pace and that the Maintenance crews would pull props off of planes that just returned and move them over to planes waiting to go.

Expanding its mission profile beyond the primary nuclear mission was probably not feasible.

[Django]

Interesting theory on using the nuclear option in Korea. Scary too.

[jet1]

Interesting theory on using the nuclear option in Korea. Scary too.

It's kind of interesting to think about the what ifs ... but like poker we have to play with the hand we are dealt...lets hope it was correct. If we keep heading down the socialism road all bets are off on how things will turn out!

[mike13]

The B-36's out of Fairchild AFB at Spokane,Washington did 90 day TDY's to Guam during the Korean "Police Action". I knew a mechanic with the 92ND and with me being just a kid, he would bring the large crackers and huge chocolate cake back to me from TDY. The cake was vitamin fortified and could be eaten or used to make cocoa. I have a rather large DPDT toggle switch from a B-36 he liberated for me. Also he gave me a craked side observtion bubble that I used to grow polywogs and waterdogs in until the inner lamination failed. We bought his 1941 Pontiac when he left the serivce in 1955. This may be a little off topic but I think it is an interesting sidebar to history.
mike 13

[the330thbg]

The MIG's would have torn them to shreds!!!!!!!