The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

syscom3 · 06-03-2008, 10:12 PM

Noone has ever provided evidence that the Soviets had the amphib capability to invade Japan proper.

Just like the Germans that were on Britains doorstep in 1940.

parsifal · 06-04-2008, 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

Noone has ever provided evidence that the Soviets had the amphib capability to invade Japan proper.

Just like the Germans that were on Britins doorstep in 1940.

Im not suggesting that. The loss of Manchukuo and the entry of the SU represented the loss of final hope at anegotiated settlement for the Japanese, which is what they were after in 1945. Its a question of which event had the greater impact, the A-Bomb or the Soviet DOW and susequent victory?

FLYBOYJ · 06-04-2008, 07:30 AM

A bomb.....

parsifal · 06-04-2008, 08:03 AM

I take it from that reply that you dont give much weight or importance to the deterrence of the Red Army in the immediate post war period, when the Russians didnt have the bomb, and we did. The US must be sure nice people not to have bombed the Soviets back to stone age, right in the middle of the Mcarthyist lobbys and the Berlin blockade. They didnt use the bomb because they (post war US) had a healthy respect for the conventional strength of the Soviet forces.

None of this answers the question of which factor had the greater effect, the bomb, or the army. It just indicates that both forces were viewed with a healthy respect by their opposite numbers. Eventually the SU worked out ways of challenging the Pax Americana in ways that made the use of nuclear weapons impossible...the little wars of the cold war. The Soviets were never beaten by the bomb, they were beaten by the dollar.

Getting back to the question. The bomb might be impressive to American eyes, but did it have the same effect on the Kwantung army, who were the army faction incharge of Japan at the time, and whose main power base was in China. I personally think the loss of Manchuria had a greater impact on Japans rulers.

FLYBOYJ · 06-04-2008, 08:48 AM

It was a factor but I think the biggest impact was the first bomb - I say that because Nagasaki had a lot of military infrastructure there. It would have been the equivalent of bombing a place like Redstone Arsenal here in the states or in your country Canberra where I believe a lot of your wartime headquarters existed.

Kruska · 06-04-2008, 10:04 AM

Hello parsifal,

Japan would have and was willing to surrender despite serious disagreements in the war council. If the US would not have dropped the Bomb, Japan would have surrendered but at the same time would have tried to place demands – time consuming – and the Allies would certainly have not agreed to a conditional surrender by Japan.

The Allies maybe especially the US were not interested in month of negotiations so in order to cut things short they dropped the Bombs.
As cruel as a A-Bomb is, especially in regards to long-term resulting it still caused far less dead and wounded on the Japanese part as through a 6-12 month prolonged conventional war on Japan mainland.

The reason for Japan to seriously consider capitulation was the fact that their entire infrastructure, cities and industries was a heap of smoldering metal and disintegrated wood and that there was no way to evacuate the Kwantung Army to Mainland Japan, which would be lost in the event of the Russian advance - not to mention the then entrapped Japanese Army in China.

The weapon that made this possible was the B-29, and it shows very clearly that a country could be forced to submission just by air bombings if the other side had the right bomber. Even a thousand Ar234’s or B-25’s/A-26, B-17 or B24 could not have achieved that mission in the same time.

So the best Bomber was for sure not some medium bomber but very clearly the B-29, the same aircraft could have broken Germany’s backbone sooner or later, but the US did not have enough for both fronts.

IMO it is the overall impact that a weapon causes and not its individual performance.
Even though I like the Fw-190D-10/11 and its performance against a P-51, it had no impact, it was the P-51's that broke the backbone of the LW. Even if one assumes that "if" the LW would have had more Fw, well the USA would still have been able to build more P-51's in a far shorter period, not to mention their pilot resources.

Sorry for drifting of into fighters.

Regards
Kruska

syscom3 · 06-04-2008, 11:21 AM

Kruska, you are making the mistake of applying a western way of thinking to a totally unique mindset that the Japanese had.

The Japanese knew they could possibly salvage a victory AND maintain their honor by fighting on as long as one Japanese citizen had the capability too.

To us, its insanity. To them, it was their culture and mindset.

The facts are clear. Without the A-Bomb being dropped, the Japanese were going to resist into the foreseeable future.

Kruska · 06-04-2008, 12:22 PM

Hello syscom3,

I wouldn’t overstress the Japanese culture or cause to honor and obedience. Some Germans – SS, lunatic Wehrmacht members, Luftwaffe Rammjaeger, or Hitler himself weren’t that far away.

The Japanese were taught to listen only to their superiors – The Emperor and his war council, and a majority was on the way to decide for surrender – conditional surrender. If the Allies would have been willing to wait for Mainland Japan for maybe 1-2 month, chances to accept even unconditional surrender as long as the Emperor gets to keep his immunity would have been very realistic.

But under the circumstances – The US having been attacked viciously without a declaration of war – The A-bomb was the answer to end things immediately and reduce losses for them. Nowadays we also take into consideration that the A-bomb’s caused less dead Japanese then an ongoing war of 6-12 month. If the Japanese would have been committed so strongly to their codex, well they would have still needed to continue and – what a surprise – the US had no more A-bombs.
No the A-bomb just helped the peace seeking fraction to speed up the recognition of total surrender even forgetting about their holy Emperor.

Regards
Kruska

Marcel · 06-04-2008, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kruska

The Emperor and his war council, and a majority was on the way to decide for surrender – conditional surrender. If the Allies would have been willing to wait for Mainland Japan for maybe 1-2 month, chances to accept even unconditional surrender as long as the Emperor gets to keep his immunity would have been very realistic.

That's not what I read, where did you get this info from?

kool kitty89 · 06-04-2008, 01:21 PM

Actually the US had one more atomic bomb nearly ready to deploy (another Plutonium bomb iirc). After that it would have been a while before another coud be constructed though.

Kruska · 06-04-2008, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcel

That's not what I read, where did you get this info from?

Hello Marcel,

please don't ask me for the Authors names or books, but there is substancial evidence about the Japanese warcouncil taking contact with the US through Russia and forwarding peace proposals. The main reason not to accept unconditional surrender was the fear of the warcouncil that the allies might not respect the immunity of the Emperor.

IIRC, even WIKI has some good articels or cross verifications on this Topic.

Regards
Kruska

syscom3 · 06-04-2008, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

Actually the US had one more atomic bomb nearly ready to deploy (another Plutonium bomb iirc). After that it would have been a while before another coud be constructed though.

Correct. The 3rd bomb was getting readied to be dropped on the Imperial Palace.

After that one, there wouldnt be another bomb available untill some time in 1946.

Dragonsinger · 06-29-2008, 02:12 PM

Hi Guys
This is just to throw a good old bugger factor into this discussion. I only found it today and went cross eyed at page 6 so if I repeat anyones points, sorry

Best is impossible to define but I recon the Lanc since it was more extensively modified than any of the other candidates and if the design aint sound that wont happen.
It caused the greatest single raid damage of the war with a PRECISION raid, The "Dambuster Raid". It had the heaviest single bomb, ten ton "Grand Slam". And there were more of them in the air on active missions at any one time than any other bomber.

Personaly I favour the Swordfish.
OH Yeah,
Thats me second from the left back row 1970.

[IMG]http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/k.../Swordfish.jpg[/IMG]

syscom3 · 06-29-2008, 02:58 PM

The Lanc didnt have the payload, range, firepower, versatility, survivability or avioncs that the B29 had.

If you want to argue what was the 2nd best, then we can do that.

Haztoys · 06-29-2008, 03:18 PM

I would think the B-25 was a great plane ...Do to the fact of all the uses and thing it could do ... Lanc and B-29 were great

The A-bomb had to of shocked the hell out of the Japanese... One plane and a big city is gone .. Big factor in the wars end ... I'm sure it would of done the same for Germany or the US or any country... Time has passed to make use think its commonplace ...But in the time and space of the 40's ..The bomb was shocking...Time changes ones mind set...