Hiroshima/Nagasaki vs conventional B-17 bombing

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"hiroshima facts" wrote in message
m...

The A-bombs killed about half of the people in the affected area both
times.

This is clearly incorrect , In 1946, the Manhattan Engineer District
published a study that concluded that 66,000 people were killed at
Hiroshima out of a population of 255,000. Of that number, 45,000 died
on the first day and 19,000 during the next four months.

I don't think all 255,000 people were in the area affected by the
A-bomb, though.




In Nagasaki, out of a population of 174,000, 22,000 died on the
first day and another 17,000 within four months.

In the case of Nagasaki, I know all 174,000 were not in the affected
area, since the pilot could only get sight of the arms-production
complexes on the outskirts of the city and so dropped the bomb there
on the outskirts.

"hiroshima facts" wrote in message
om...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
"hiroshima facts" wrote in message
m...

The A-bombs killed about half of the people in the affected area both
times.

This is clearly incorrect , In 1946, the Manhattan Engineer District
published a study that concluded that 66,000 people were killed at
Hiroshima out of a population of 255,000. Of that number, 45,000 died
on the first day and 19,000 during the next four months.

I don't think all 255,000 people were in the area affected by the
A-bomb, though.


I dont think all the population of Tokyo were in the area
affected by its bombing either but the target at Hiroshima
was the military HQ and there were at least 30,000 soldiers
in the area.




In Nagasaki, out of a population of 174,000, 22,000 died on the
first day and another 17,000 within four months.

In the case of Nagasaki, I know all 174,000 were not in the affected
area, since the pilot could only get sight of the arms-production
complexes on the outskirts of the city and so dropped the bomb there
on the outskirts.

Actually the arms plant was the target.

In neither case were half the population killed as you asserted

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...


I dont think all the population of Tokyo were in the area
affected by its bombing either

Correct. Only about 1 million people.




but the target at Hiroshima was the military HQ and there
were at least 30,000 soldiers in the area.

43,000 Japanese soldiers (20,000 of which were killed by the bomb).

I never saw figures for injuries, but I imagine a lot of the rest had
some serious injuries.




Actually the arms plant was the target.

It was the target the pilot was aiming for because it was all he could
see. But the target he was supposed to be hitting at Nagasaki was the
Mitsubishi Shipyards.




In neither case were half the population killed as you asserted

Not half population of the cities. But half the population in the
areas affected by the bombs.

I don't think all 255,000 people were in the area affected by the
A-bomb, though.

As posted elsewhe this is the whole point! The nuclear blast wastes
most of its power killing the same people over and over again.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Even in the worst cases of conventional bombing (like Tokyo), only 10%
of the affected population was killed.

It would appear that somewhere between 25 and 30 percent of the
Hiroshima population was killed. www.warbirdforum.com/hirodead.htm
Comparing kiloton equivalents, it might well be that the Tokyo fire
raid was much more devastating.
all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Cub Driver wrote in message . ..
Even in the worst cases of conventional bombing (like Tokyo), only 10%
of the affected population was killed.

It would appear that somewhere between 25 and 30 percent of the
Hiroshima population was killed.


But how many of them were in the area affected by the bomb?

It would appear that somewhere between 25 and 30 percent of the
Hiroshima population was killed.


But how many of them were in the area affected by the bomb?

But that, surely, is the whole point! The atomic bomb makes rubble
bounce. The same or less kilotonnage spread over a wide area might
well do much more damage.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Cub Driver wrote in message . ..

It would appear that somewhere between 25 and 30 percent of the
Hiroshima population was killed.


But how many of them were in the area affected by the bomb?


But that, surely, is the whole point! The atomic bomb makes rubble
bounce. The same or less kilotonnage spread over a wide area might
well do much more damage.


To structures, perhaps.

But even if we use the lower mortality figures of 7-8% for Tokyo, and
31% for the nukes, there are still a lot more killed within the
affected area with nukes.

To put it another way, compare the number killed with one of the
A-bombs with the number killed in Tokyo. Then compare the area
destroyed and the population density of that area.

It is true that "people not taking cover from the nukes" is going to
skew this some, but I expect that there would still be a considerable
difference even if that was taken into account.

"hiroshima facts" wrote in message
m...
"zxcv" wrote in message
...
Since the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were about 10 kilotons and a B-17
had
a normal bomb load of about 3 tons and I have heard of a formation of
1300
B-17's on a bomb run that would equal around 4 kilotons (3 x 1300 =
3900)
would the devastation be the same as a small A-bomb? or is there some
lessening effect because of the spread of much smaller bombs?


Even in the worst cases of conventional bombing (like Tokyo), only 10%
of the affected population was killed.

In most of the Japanese cities firebombed, the death rate was about
1%.

The A-bombs killed about half of the people in the affected area both
times.

Nope. You need to change your nickname from "Hiroshima Facts" to "Hiroshima
Fantasies". Had half the population of Hiroshima died then the death toll
there would have been well over 100K, which is plainly not the case.

Brooks

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ...

Nope. You need to change your nickname from "Hiroshima Facts" to "Hiroshima
Fantasies".

This was a poor substitute for an intelligent argument.



Had half the population of Hiroshima died then the death toll
there would have been well over 100K, which is plainly not the case.

"Half the affected area" and "half the population of the city" are not
necessarily the same thing.