Hiroshima justified? (was Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements)

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:14:42 UTC, Col. RJ wrote:

On 20 Dec 2003 23:32:03 -0800, (cave fish)


First off, **** Japan, they started it, we finished it.
Second, Arm chair quarter backing the leaders back then is as stupid
today as saying some running back should have done a run different
last sunday.
I believe that the Japs were well served by dropping nukes. They were
given the chance to surrender and refused. Wanting instead to force
us to invade, where I will bet hundreds of thousands if not a million
or more would have died. (People like you would today be whining about
why we didn't use nukes to save that carnage). After the first nuke
we again asked the Japs to surrender and they refused. If not for the
Emperor, they also didn't want to surrender after the second Tojo was
prepared to obliterate the whole country before giving up.
AS for the civilian cassualties, the Japs themselves didn't care about
civilians in other countries. Nor obviously did they care about their
own since the militerists were prepared to sacrifice them all for
their pride. Yet now 60 years later you expect us to feel bad and
all. Not gonna happen from anyone with a smidgen of sanity and an IQ
over 65.


Indeed, imagine we invaded instead of nuked. Incredible causalties
all round,
guerilla warfare, street by street fighting. Then the American
populace finds out
we had a weapon that could have ended it all in days.

Boom!

LT

3. This all B-17's and B-24's kill more people in Hamburg, Norymberga and
others Germany cities

Don't forget the RAF Lancasters and Mosquitoes, which put on the night
firebombing raids, the which did more damage to German cities.

Cite concerning Mosquitos firebombing, please. Placing the Mosquito among the
four area bombers mentioned (five, counting the Enola Gay herself) is the same
as including a scalpel among a box of cleavers. They didn't bomb cities, they
attacked addresses. I do place a distinction between weapons designed or
employed to "dehouse" or, more bluntly, depopulate an area from the rare
aircraft with the Mosquitos ability to strike the exact spot of the enemy
infection.

v/r
Gordon
====(A+C====
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send those old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

In article ,
nt (Krztalizer) wrote:

3. This all B-17's and B-24's kill more people in Hamburg, Norymberga and
others Germany cities

Don't forget the RAF Lancasters and Mosquitoes, which put on the night
firebombing raids, the which did more damage to German cities.

Cite concerning Mosquitos firebombing, please.

They operated as Pathfinders, which were an integral part of the RAF
night bombing campaign. The bomber streams didn't operate alone.

Placing the Mosquito among the
four area bombers mentioned (five, counting the Enola Gay herself) is the same
as including a scalpel among a box of cleavers. They didn't bomb cities, they
attacked addresses.

They did that, too, along with a boatload of other jobs.

On 21 Dec 2003 22:44:55 GMT, nt (Krztalizer) wrote:

3. This all B-17's and B-24's kill more people in Hamburg, Norymberga and
others Germany cities

Don't forget the RAF Lancasters and Mosquitoes, which put on the night
firebombing raids, the which did more damage to German cities.

Cite concerning Mosquitos firebombing, please. Placing the Mosquito among the
four area bombers mentioned (five, counting the Enola Gay herself) is the same
as including a scalpel among a box of cleavers. They didn't bomb cities, they
attacked addresses. I do place a distinction between weapons designed or
employed to "dehouse" or, more bluntly, depopulate an area from the rare
aircraft with the Mosquitos ability to strike the exact spot of the enemy
infection.

v/r
Gordon
====(A+C====
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send those old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

Without PGMs they were just chucking them out like everyone else. They may have
been assigned different targets, but their "accuracy" was as non-existant as
any other level bomber of the era.

Al Minyard

Without PGMs they were just chucking them out like everyone else. They may
have
been assigned different targets, but their "accuracy" was as non-existant as
any other level bomber of the era.

From 30K perhaps, but down in the weeds, Mosquitos sent their bombs through
doorways and into specifica areas of buildings that they were attacking. No
B-17 or Lanc could ever claim that.

v/r
Gordon
====(A+C====
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send those old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

On 22 Dec 2003 23:00:35 GMT, nt (Krztalizer) wrote:


Without PGMs they were just chucking them out like everyone else. They may
have
been assigned different targets, but their "accuracy" was as non-existant as
any other level bomber of the era.

From 30K perhaps, but down in the weeds, Mosquitos sent their bombs through
doorways and into specifica areas of buildings that they were attacking. No
B-17 or Lanc could ever claim that.

v/r
Gordon
====(A+C====
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send those old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

All parts of the "Mosquito" myth. The A-20, B-25, B-26, etc all had the same
bombing capabilities. Early in the war, the Mossy was all that the Brits had,
so it was useful for them to portray it as a "super weapon"

Don't get me wrong, the Mossy was a fine a/c, but it was NOT a "precision"
weapon.

Al Minyard

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
...
On 22 Dec 2003 23:00:35 GMT, nt (Krztalizer) wrote:


All parts of the "Mosquito" myth. The A-20, B-25, B-26, etc all had the
same
bombing capabilities. Early in the war, the Mossy was all that the Brits
had,
so it was useful for them to portray it as a "super weapon"

There are a couple of slight problems here

1) The Mosquito wasnt available in the early part of the war

2) The RAF operated all of the US types you mention and
replaced many of them with the Mosquito

3) There are very few aircraft of WW2 that were succesful in
as many roles as the Mosquito. Fighter, maritime strike, night fighter,
fighter bomber and night bomber.

4) The RAF never depicted it as a super weapon, the major types
used in the bomber offensive were the Lancaster and Halifax.


Don't get me wrong, the Mossy was a fine a/c, but it was NOT a "precision"
weapon.

It certainly was on occasion as in the raid on the Gestapo prison
at Amiens and the HQ in Copenhagen. The problem was in such
raids the losses were heavy as at such low altitude German light
flak was deadly.

It was not of course a wonder weapon but the Luftwaffe certainly
came to fear it by night every bit as much as they did the P-51
by day.

Keith

In article ,
Dave Smith wrote:

American leadership in WW II? That is where we differ. England and its
Commonwealth Allies were fighting in Europe

Because they'd been pushed to the wall and couldn't put it off any
longer, once Poland was attacked.

The U.S. was limited, then, to providing logistical support (Lend
Lease), some convoy support (USS Reuben James), and trying desperately
to build up its military forces to something resembling a useful level.
At the beginning of 1940, the U.S. military ranked around 16th, behind
Polands.

and in SE Asia long before the US finally got involved.

Try again. Japan's attack on the Malay peninsula got the Commonwealth
involved in fighting in SE Asia.

On December 7, 1941, the Japanese Army began arriving at Kota Bharu.
This was just a diversionary force and the main landings in the Malay
peninsula did not take place until the next day, December 8, at Singora
and Patani on the north-east coast.

A diversion one day before Pearl Harbor (the two locales being on
different sides of the IDL), the main initial attack on the same day.

I suppose some might call one day "long before".

It's weak enough to be countered by noting that a U.S.N. gunboat, the
Panay, had already been attacked by Japanese forces in China, in 1937.
Both would be similarly silly claims.

From: Charles Gray
Date: 12/21/2003 9:33 PM Pacific

post snipped

Excellent post, sir. Summed up the reality of the days and the mind-set for
when these events occurred. Next, these armchair war critics will start
arguing with Washington's tactics at Yorktown.

Using a bomb like this on a city, or hundreds of thousands of bombs, is wrong
in my opinion. But in the context of a war that I wasn't around to fight, and
the fact that it ended the bloodiest war in history, practically overnight,
suggests that the atomic bombing of these two home island targets was no
different than conventional missions by LeMay's forces, with the exception that
these two missions accomplised an end to the war, which all the other massed
missions and thousands of casualties had not.

Gordon

nt (Krztalizer) wrote:
From: Charles Gray
Date: 12/21/2003 9:33 PM Pacific

post snipped

Excellent post, sir. Summed up the reality
of the days and the mind-set for
when these events occurred. Next, these armchair
war critics will start
arguing with Washington's tactics at Yorktown.

Using a bomb like this on a city, or hundreds
of thousands of bombs, is wrong
in my opinion. But in the context of a war
that I wasn't around to fight, and
the fact that it ended the bloodiest war in
history, practically overnight,
suggests that the atomic bombing of these two
home island targets was no
different than conventional missions by LeMay's
forces, with the exception that
these two missions accomplised an end to the
war, which all the other massed
missions and thousands of casualties had not.

Gordon
The bombs were necessary. Alternatives such as a combined blockade and
bombing campaign, or the invasion that was already approved and scheduled
for "on or after 1 November 1945" would succeed, but length of the former
(up to 18 months) and the cost and length of the latter (c.370,000 casualties
and at least a year for the combined invasions of Kyushu and the Kanto Plain)
were considered unacceptable to Truman now that the bomb worked. The weapon
worked, a delivery platform equipped a suitable unit (509th CG), and that
unit had deployed and was ready to go. The domestic political cost of NOT
USING the bomb was also unacceptable, as the US population was war-weary.
Given the info Truman had, and an intransigent Japanese government where
the Army was calling most of the shots (in some cases literally, as assassination
fears infected the civilian members of the govt and the Navy command, who
supported the civilians), he had no choice but to unleash Little Boy and
Fat Man. And more if necessary to accomplish the goal of Japanese Surrender.
Fortunately, only two were needed.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!