Best Allied Heavy Bomber

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by riacrato

The atomic bomb didn't single-handedly bring Japan to its knees. The failed negotiations with the Soviets and the invasion of Manchuria had at least as much if not more to do with that. I know people like to think "the bomb won the war period" because that way no one has to feel bad about it anymore but it's not so easy.

The Soviets were weeks if not months away from doing any serious damage to the japanese mainland. I'd agree japanese leaders had something to worry about, but it was the bomb that brought the Japanese Empire down.

BTW - I don't feel badly about the deployment of BOTH atomic bombs.

Now please stay on topic.

[Civettone]

I read it was the destruction of the last oil reserves which made the military realize that defeat was inevitable. But then the B-29 still did it ...
http://www.tony-kirk.com/WWIIsecret/main.html


I don't think the A-bomb was THE turning point. Why else did they not surrender after the first ??


Kris

edit: if the link doesn't work: http://www.worldwar-two.net/acontecimentos/40/

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Civettone

I read it was the destruction of the last oil reserves which made the military realize that defeat was inevitable. But then the B-29 still did it ...

I don't think the A-bomb was THE turning point. Why else did they not surrender after the first ??


Kris

Because they were made to think that each of their major cities were going to suffer the same fate.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Civettone

I read it was the destruction of the last oil reserves which made the military realize that defeat was inevitable. But then the B-29 still did it ...

I don't think the A-bomb was THE turning point. Why else did they not surrender after the first ??


Kris

There was only three days between the first and second.

They surrendered after the 2nd, once the political leaders realized just what was going to happen.

[Colin1]

Originally Posted by Civettone

I don't think the A-bomb was THE turning point. Why else did they not surrender after the first ??

Hirohito was desperate to end the war
his Army and Navy ministers were just as determined to hold the line. After Hiroshima, they and their senior staff still wanted to play the waiting game on the Soviets. After Nagasaki (and the near-simultaneous declaration of war by the Soviet Union), the same senior figures were split down the middle over the surrender issue; at this point Hirohito stepped in and tipped the vote in favour of surrender.

The bomb was THE turning point, the guy at the top in Tokyo saw that too

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by riacrato

The atomic bomb didn't single-handedly bring Japan to its knees. The failed negotiations with the Soviets and the invasion of Manchuria had at least as much if not more to do with that. I know people like to think "the bomb won the war period" because that way no one has to feel bad about it anymore but it's not so easy.

It was the final nail in the coffin which brought Japan to realize it was better to end the war with out more blood spilled.

I for one do not feel bad about it. I think most people don't either. Hell I agree with the bombings.

[Civettone]

Originally Posted by syscom3

There was only three days between the first and second.

They surrendered after the 2nd, once the political leaders realized just what was going to happen.

That I doubt. I think things were very clear from day 1. And why wait still after the second A-bomb???
The fact is that the military leaders turned a blind eye when their cities were being bombed into rubble. The firestorms were almost as destructive as the A-bombs. Sure, you needed an entire fleet for the conventional bombings but for the Japs it was the same anyhow. No, it seems clear to me that the bombing of cities could not have been decisive. Still important but more from a military point of view. Let's also look what would have happened if Germany under Hitler had been hit by A-bombs. Does anyone think Hitler would have folded? No, and most of the military leaders in Japan were just as insane as him. Appaling losses through suicide missions for months didn't seem to bother them. They were all ready to fight the Americans on Japanese soil till the last man.

Only when it became clear that they could not have won militarily, did things start to change. We must be aware not to look at this from a western point of view. For us the A-bomb was the pinnacle of the war. But the real nemesis of Japan was Russia, ever since 1904. When they saw they were going to lose all their territories in Manchuria and after that probably China, they realized the war could never have been fought to a standstill. The cabinet met to discuss capitulation hours after they heard of the Russian invasion. And not on the days the A-bombs fell. That seems to have been what triggered them.

That brought many of them to a different opinion. The emperor who had always been weak could finally have his say because there was a power vacuum.

So it was the Russian invasion or more in general the realisation that they could only lose militarily which was the turning point. Not the destruction of any city.

One more time because I want to stress this ... we should stop looking at this from a western point of view. That's like saying D-Day was the turning point in the ETO.
Kris

[carman1877]

Not sure if everybody knows this or not, but the B-17 could carry up to 17,600lbs. on short runs. It used special external bomb racks to carry the bombs.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Civettone

and most of the military leaders in Japan were just as insane as him. Appaling losses through suicide missions for months didn't seem to bother them. They were all ready to fight the Americans on Japanese soil till the last man.

But it was the Emperor who called for the surrender and because he was a "living god" the Japanese Military machine was forced to comply, although there were a few who did attempt a coup.

This is text from a site I found, spells it out pretty good...

On July 26, word arrived at Potsdam that Winston Churchill had been defeated in his bid for reelection. Within hours, Truman, Stalin, and Clement Attlee (the new British prime minister, below) issued their warning to Japan: surrender or suffer "prompt and utter destruction." As had been the case with Stalin, no specific mention of the atomic bomb was made. This "Potsdam Declaration" left the emperor's status unclear by making no reference to the royal house in the section that promised the Japanese that they could design their new government as long as it was peaceful and more democratic. Anti-war sentiment was growing among Japanese civilian leaders, but no peace could be made without the consent of the military leaders. They still retained hope for a negotiated peace where they would be able to keep at least some of their conquests or at least avoid American occupation of the homeland. On July 29, 1945, the Japanese rejected the Potsdam Declaration.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by carman1877

Not sure if everybody knows this or not, but the B-17 could carry up to 17,600lbs. on short runs. It used special external bomb racks to carry the bombs.

That's been discussed here before - it also has about a 300 mile range with the bomb load from what I understand.

[syscom3]

Civettone, Hiroshima was the first ever atomic bomb (forget the trinity test shot). Only a handfull of people knew what an atomic detonation looked like and for the blast information to take a couple of days to filter upwards is understandable.

And answer me this. How was Russia going to invade Japan if they didnt have anyway to do it? The IJA/IJN were not a bunch of dummies and knew exactly who had the capability to invade and who didnt.

[carman1877]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

The B-29 ended the war probably 3 years earlier excluding the atomic bombings. The mission was more treacherous because of the over water route and between the B-29s raids and the allied navies starving Japan, Japan was just about at her knees in August 1945. The -29 got the job done quicker than any conventional bomber of the day could have done, to me that makes up for the "impact" of the war, and again I won't even bring up the atomic bombing.

Service life? The Lancaster fought in one theater in one war - the B-29 fought against Jet aircraft and was the first dedicated nuclear bomber leading the Strategic Air Command into the 1950s. It had at least twice the service life as a front line bomber aircraft than the Lancaster did. Again RAF Bomber Command had to "borrow" B-29s because the Lincoln couldn't do the job in the post war years. Again a half of generation ahead of any of its contemporaries.

I should have said this in the poll, but I meant only in World War Two. the B-29 did infact have an impact on the Pacific Conflict, but I dont think that many if any B-29s served in the Atlantic conflict, although i dont know much about where the B-29s were stationed. However I belive that I heard the lancaster dropped the most bombs out all allied bombers in the Atlantic theatre. Again though not 100% sure. The British were going to send lancasters over to fight japan after germany surrendered. Also like i said before the lancaster had its flaws too, like blind spots.

[Civettone]

Flyboyj, there does seem to be a dubious relationship towards the emperor. On the one hand they regarded him as a god and the reason for their own petty little existence. And on the other hand they tried to keep him out of politics as much as possible and run Japan on their own. It is clear that the military was behind the war and the emperor had very little if anything to say about how it was being run.
So that shows that the leaders were hiding themselves behind the status of the emperor, knowing that they themselves or the institutes for which they stood would be preserved if the emperor would remain the nominal head of the "Empire".

Originally Posted by syscom3

Civettone, Hiroshima was the first ever atomic bomb (forget the trinity test shot). Only a handfull of people knew what an atomic detonation looked like and for the blast information to take a couple of days to filter upwards is understandable.

And answer me this. How was Russia going to invade Japan if they didnt have anyway to do it? The IJA/IJN were not a bunch of dummies and knew exactly who had the capability to invade and who didnt.

Syscom, yes, the atomic bomb was something completely new but after a few hours the size of the destruction was well known to the Japanese leaders. They knew a single bomb had been dropped and that the entire city was gone... You don't need to be a scientist to put one and one together.

As to Russia. I never said Russia was going to invade Japan. I said Japan was going to lose Manchuria and later China to Russia thereby ending the Empire. Only Japan would have been left. Japan still had a million and a half soldiers over there. Japan hoped to keep these parts after the armistice. Realizing that their biggest nemesis, the Soviet Union had now turned on them and had attacked them was a bigger shock than the dropping of the A-bombs. You have to look at the history of Japan and its geopolitical position. Traditionally the Japanese feared the Russians more than the Americans (though of course the latter was much more powerful by 1945).

Kris

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by carman1877

I should have said this in the poll, but I meant only in World War Two. the B-29 did infact have an impact on the Pacific Conflict, but I dont think that many if any B-29s served in the Atlantic conflict, although i dont know much about where the B-29s were stationed. However I belive that I heard the lancaster dropped the most bombs out all allied bombers in the Atlantic theatre. Again though not 100% sure. The British were going to send lancasters over to fight japan after germany surrendered. Also like i said before the lancaster had its flaws too, like blind spots.

The B-29 was never intended to serve in the ETO. Had the war in Europe lasted longer the Convair B-32 was supposed to replace the B-17 and B-24, but the ending of the war plus the plane's delay in production sealed that plan.

Lancasters did drop the most bombs in the ETO - they had the most opportunity to do so, it doesn't mean it was a better aircraft. As pointed out the B-29 was a far more capable aircraft.

[Shortround6]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Lancasters did drop the most bombs in the ETO - they had the most opportunity to do so, it doesn't mean it was a better aircraft. As pointed out the B-29 was a far more capable aircraft.

According to some sources the B-17 dropped more bombs in Europe than the Lancaster, by about 5%.

Of course the B-17s might have numbered just few thousand more plane in the ETO.