Greatest Strategic Air Missions

(BUFDRVR) wrote:
Venik wrote:

Thus, for every Japanese
soldier killed in the Hiroshima bombing there
was 97% of "collateral
damage." So, no, it was not the greatest strategic
air mission.

The judgement on whether a mission was a strategic
success is not based on
collateral damage. In *most* circumstances high
collateral damage will usually
translate to a strategic failure....but not
in this case.

The Soviet advances were the primary reason
for the fact that the Japs
were even considering a surrender.

Not according to interviews conducted with Japanese
civilian and military
leaders following WW II. Take a look at the
U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey.

Same situation as with the Germans trying to
surrender
to the Americans and nobody nuked them.

Uhh..the first successful nuclear bomb testing
wasn't done until 16 July
1945....two months after Germany was defeated.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those
bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"
Remember Venik: The bomb was meant to be delivered on Germany. While it
was used against Japan, Germany was considered the first target up until
early '45.

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

"Matt Wiser" wrote in message
news:412b51f9$1@bg2....

"Kevin Brooks" wrote:

"Matt Wiser" wrote
in message
news:412a26b3$1@bg2....

It took a double-whammy of the A-bomb and
Ivan crossing into Manchuria and
Korea to end the war. The A-bomb alone might
not have been enough.
Anything
that prevents OLYMPIC and CORONET from having
to be executed had to be
done.
Period. The Japanese Cabinet was meeting to
discuss Hiroshima and the
Soviet
invasion when word reached them of the Nagasaki
strike. Next day Hirohito
decides that enough is enough. 14 Aug is the
attempted putsch that fails
and the Surrender announcement comes on the
15th. Next probable nuclear
strike
date was on 18 Aug with Kokura as the primary.
Bomb #3 was about to leave
Los Alamos on 10 Aug when a hold order arrived.
Two bombs and a million
and
a half Russians in the space of four days
forced Japan's surrender. End of
story and of war.

Overly simplistic, at least those last two sentences.
A hell of a lot more
than that went into the Japanese surrender equation.
The tightening sea
blockade, effective inshore mining by B-29's,
the creeping effects of the
B-29 raids against industrial and urban areas,
the gaining of bases at Iwo
Jima and Okinawa that now moved even more landbased
airpower into range of
Kyushu and Honshu, the isolation of large troop
garrisons in far-flung and
by then bypassed areas, the fact that they no
longer had any navy to speak
of outside kamikaze attack light combatants
being horded, along with their
remaining aircraft, to counter the feared invasion
of Kyushu, and of course
that feared homeland invasion itself (and the
fact that the more reasonable
Japanese leaders by then realized that "Ketsu-Go"
was invariably doomed to
failure when that invasion did come)...all of
these factors contributed to
the Japanese surrender. The first atomic bomb
was an attention getter, the
Soviet invasion was the closure of their forlorn
negotiated surrender hopes,
and the second bomb was the final closer.

Brooks

snip


And there was no way that the Kyushu invasion (OLYMPIC) could have been
repelled

That is what I meant when I said that their more competent leaders realized
that Ketsu-Go was not a winning option; Ketsu-Go was their defensive plan
for the home islands that had succeeded the previous Sho-Go.

: Most Japanese defenses were on the beaches and inland in range
of NGFS, and a suggestion that the defense of Okinawa and Luzon be
emulated
was rejected-the plan was defend on the beaches and in strength inland,
but

True, but you must remember that their strategy was to try and neutralize
the NGFS and CAS superiority the US would have enjoyed by making it a
close-in "knife fight" that would have limited the usefullness of each of
those fire support systems. They were hamstrung, though, by their lack of
engineer units with which to prepare adequate defenses.

once the beach defenses are broken, the Japanese coastal divisions have
had
it,

The Japanese had already recognized that allowing the US to gain a beachhed
*anywhere* typically resulted in a rapid buildup of combat power that their
forces could not subsequently cope with, which is why they depended upon
first trying to hammer the invasion fleet with kamikaze attacks from the
air, the surface of the sea, and under the sea, and then engaging the
spearhead forces in close combat. Their best hope was that they could make
the cost so bloody to the allies that we would decide it was not worth the
effort--not a very likely outcome. But it would have likely been plenty
bloody for both sides.

and the attempts to move reserves from South-Central Kyushu to counterattack
(Ariake Bay, where XI Corps with 1st Cav, 43rd and Americal Divisions
would
have landed was considered by the Japanese to be the main battle area in
Kyushu) would have been exposed to air attack and have had very poor roads
on which to move anyway.

The Japanese staff did a pretty good job in terms of identifying the likely
invasion sites and arraying forces accordingly. And you are right, their
CATK forces would have been hard pressed to do their job; their plans called
for them to arrive and launch directly into battle from march order, so
those that *did* survive the inevitable pounding from allied air
interdiction efforts would have found themselves being fed into the
gristmill in a piecemeal fashion, not a good thing (for them).

Mostly grunts with little heavy equipment anyhow
and what armor they had would have suffered from air and naval gunfire
before
even getting to the battle. Best case for Kyushu is 30 days, more likely
45-50 days before Southern Kyushu is relatively secure and the
base-building
gets underway for to support CORONET.

I'd be careful about overestimating the value of WWII long range NGFS;
history shows that it was often of limited value (the most valuable NGFS in
numerous operations was that provided by the tin cans operating
up-close-and-personal). Time and again we pounded the hell out of Japanese
defenses with NGFS, only to have to tangle with them when they emerged from
their bunkers and hidey-holes.

Brooks


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

Subject: Greatest Strategic Air Missions
From: (WaltBJ)
Date: 8/23/04 9:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

Every time this subject comes up I am both amazed and appalled at the
revisionist/PC thinking based on fragmentary knowledge of the
situation existing then. The US had just been thorugh the Peleliu, Iwo
Jma, Phillipines and Okinawa campaigns and the casualties were
horrendous. Now we were going to invade the Japanese Home Islands and
we could reliably expect the fighting to be grimly intense. I strongly
recommend y'all find books on the above campaigns and read through
them and then look up the plans to invade Kyushu and then the Tokyo
beaches. Especially study the Japanese planned counteractions - they
had deduced where the landings were to take place. Not very difficult
- there's not that many choices. The Combined Japanese Air Forces had
held back 5,000 air-lanes for Kamikaze use! Note that the Services of
Supply had ordered 400,000 Purple Hearts for the two invasions. Also
note that President Truman had been in combat in WW1. ISTR he was a
field artillery battery CO - not a staff officer. He knew plenty about
battle casualties from real personal knowledge. So, with the atomic
bomb handy, would you-all have the guts (and gall) to sened your
troops into battle knowing that the casualties would be horrendous,
far greater than Iwo or Okinawa? And you would have to recycle ETO
infantry combat vets to replace the fully expected losses - guys that
had already 'seen the elephant'? Face it - the US was running low on
front line troops -
Now - would I have given the order? Damn right I would - given the
choice between killing the enemy and saving my own troops or doing a
grim trade-off of my guys for theirs - I'd nuke and re-nuke them until
they quit. They fro damn sure earned it. Unlike most of you-all I've
lost enough very close friends in combat, men I've trusted my life to.
Now stop all your maunderings until you've done some study of the
situation - as it existed back then! As for collateral damage - the
Russkies did a pretty good job on Warsaw and points west, culminating
in Berlin. Massive artillery barrages take a little longer than nuking
the places but the result was pretty much the same except the area of
destruction is larger. Walt BJ








Not much to add to that..Well said Walt.

"WaltBJ" wrote in message
om...
Every time this subject comes up I am both amazed and appalled at the
revisionist/PC thinking based on fragmentary knowledge of the
situation existing then. The US had just been thorugh the Peleliu, Iwo
Jma, Phillipines and Okinawa campaigns and the casualties were
horrendous. Now we were going to invade the Japanese Home Islands and
we could reliably expect the fighting to be grimly intense. I strongly
recommend y'all find books on the above campaigns and read through
them and then look up the plans to invade Kyushu and then the Tokyo
beaches. Especially study the Japanese planned counteractions - they
had deduced where the landings were to take place. Not very difficult
- there's not that many choices. The Combined Japanese Air Forces had
held back 5,000 air-lanes for Kamikaze use! Note that the Services of
Supply had ordered 400,000 Purple Hearts for the two invasions. Also
note that President Truman had been in combat in WW1. ISTR he was a
field artillery battery CO - not a staff officer. He knew plenty about
battle casualties from real personal knowledge. So, with the atomic
bomb handy, would you-all have the guts (and gall) to sened your
troops into battle knowing that the casualties would be horrendous,
far greater than Iwo or Okinawa? And you would have to recycle ETO
infantry combat vets to replace the fully expected losses - guys that
had already 'seen the elephant'? Face it - the US was running low on
front line troops -
Now - would I have given the order? Damn right I would - given the
choice between killing the enemy and saving my own troops or doing a
grim trade-off of my guys for theirs - I'd nuke and re-nuke them until
they quit. They fro damn sure earned it. Unlike most of you-all I've
lost enough very close friends in combat, men I've trusted my life to.
Now stop all your maunderings until you've done some study of the
situation - as it existed back then! As for collateral damage - the
Russkies did a pretty good job on Warsaw and points west, culminating
in Berlin. Massive artillery barrages take a little longer than nuking
the places but the result was pretty much the same except the area of
destruction is larger. Walt BJ


Great post in "politically correct" today world. We can't judge wartime
happenings on basis what we think is nice or not nice today. From the wars
in Bible antagonistic sides had done ALL they can to put enemy down. It is
wrong and sad - but it is just true. Any of fighting sides in ww2 had used
nukes for sure if they had one. And president or field commander who sents
million or more of his soldiers to death for reason he just don't wants to
use full potential of weaponry available would end up in court. For sure
things are different in Iraq or Vietnam or Afganistan - but those are more
police operations, not real war when life and fate of both side is on vague.

Kevin Brooks wrote:

Great, but unfortuantely now a bit outdated...

What is outdated?

, since we know the reason Stalin
was not overtly impressed by the mention of the bomb (not really a "brief",
now was it?)

Who said "brief"?

--
Regards,

Venik

Visit my site: http://www.aeronautics.ru
If you need to e-mail me, please use the following subject line:
?Subject=Newsgr0ups_resp0 nse

BUFDRVR wrote:

Which hardy means he briefed Stalin on the results of the Mahatten
Project as
you insinuated.

Don't assume what wasn't said.

--
Regards,

Venik

Visit my site: http://www.aeronautics.ru
If you need to e-mail me, please use the following subject line:
?Subject=Newsgr0ups_resp0 nse

Keith Willshaw wrote:

Incorrect, the militarists in charge wanted to hold out for a
deal that would leave them in control of Korea, Taiwan
and Manchuria.

Right, I suppose they wanted Alaska and Siberia as well.

--
Regards,

Venik

Visit my site: http://www.aeronautics.ru
If you need to e-mail me, please use the following subject line:
?Subject=Newsgr0ups_resp0 nse

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

Not hard for me. Like, who was going to tell them?

I am sure the Japanese high command was waiting by the phone all day
Immediately following the Yalta conference, the Soviets initiated a
massive mobilization of military and industrial capabilities in the Far
East. The Soviet Pacific Fleet was reinforced with additional landing
craft, fast attack boats and other ships - preparations that the
Japanese could not have missed even if every last one of them was
looking south. So, unless the Japanese thought that the massive Soviet
military preparations in the Far East that immediately followed the
Yalta conference were to throw he biggest May Day parade Vladivostok has
ever seen, I am certain they had a fairly good chance of putting one and
one together. Really, there've been volumes written on the subject, so,
like, read a book, man, or something.

Conventional wisdom has it that the Soviets were happy to receive the
delegation to help mislead the Japanese into thinking that a Soviet
attack was NOT imminent

And it was not imminent. The declaration of war, however, was. By
letting the Japanese know that the declaration of war was inevitable,
the USSR would have gained leverage to force a negotiated surrender from
Japan. Stalin had much to gain from such a deal as opposed to a
full-scale invasion, which was planned by Vasilevsky on August 26-31 and
was to be led by the 87th Infantry Corps.

The reason they "shouldn't have" produced results was that Stalin had
made a prior comitment to enter the war against Japan.

Once again, you are confusing the declaration of war with the actual
war. The Soviet preparations for a war with Japan were obvious and there
was an obvious chronological link between these preparations and the
Yalta conference. The fact that the USSR was going to attack Japan
following the defeat of Germany was well-known since the Tehran
conference, when Stalin said that the Soviet attack against Japan would
be possible by increasing the Soviet forces in the Far East threefold,
which can happen after the defeat of Germany. So, yes, Stalin's promise
to attack Japan made at the Yalta conference was definitely the secret
of Polichinelle.

I am very interested in your source of information here. It is hard
to imagine Le May not wanting to use any weapon against Japan

It's a well-known fact that Arnold and LeMay did not favor using the
A-bomb against Japan, believing that the war can be won by conventional
bombing. It is also a well-known fact that LeMay actively opposed the
use of the A-bomb, but carried out the orders imposed on him. LeMay
himself wrote about this in his memoirs. He believed in 1945 as he
believed in Do you people read or just watch PBS? Naturally, not all for
the same reasons, but a number of other US commanders did not support
the use of the A-bomb against Japan: Bradley, Strauss, King, Leahy,
Arnold. And unlike most of them, Le May maintained his position even
after the A-bomb was used, saying during a press conference on September
20, 1945: "The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at
all."

They hide this information in books, which you should try to read from
time to time to supplement your PBS education.

and
MacArthur (according to a biographical piece I saw recently on PBS)
wanted to use nuclear weapons in Korea.

I don't think we are talking about the same war...

Again, can you show that the US gave Japan any guarantees as to the
Emperor's safety befor they agreed to surender? Such a guarantee
may have been in the formal terms of surrender, but the question
is, was such a guarantee communicated to the Japanese befor
the actual surrender negotiations?

You must be joking. The question of the Emperor was the cornerstone of
this whole diplomatic spectacle. I can imagine the scene on board the
USS Missouri: Foreign Minister Shigemitsu and General Umezu are
glancing over the surrender deal before signing. Shigemitsu: "I'll be
damned, Yoshijiro, look: it says we can keep His Imperial Majesty after
all." MacArthur: "Didn't you two clowns get the memo I sent out this
morning?"

Nonsense. While Truman may have given some consideration to what
territory the Soviets might have gained had the war continued for
another year or more there is no reason to believe he did not give
more consideration to American, Chinese, and even Ja[panese casualties
to be expected from a continuation of the war.

Yes, he was a gentle and caring person this Truman. They say he even
lost his appetite for a few days after nuking tens of thousands of
civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

--
Regards,

Venik

Visit my site: http://www.aeronautics.ru
If you need to e-mail me, please use the following subject line:
?Subject=Newsgr0ups_resp0 nse

Venik wrote:
Keith Willshaw wrote:

Incorrect, the militarists in charge wanted
to hold out for a
deal that would leave them in control of Korea,
Taiwan
and Manchuria.

Right, I suppose they wanted Alaska and Siberia
as well.

--
Regards,

Venik

Visit my site: http://www.aeronautics.ru
If you need to e-mail me, please use the following
subject line:
?Subject=Newsgr0ups_resp 0nse
If they had won, yes. But they didn't. They lost. Period. And Several of
the militarists got their necks stretched at the Tokyo War Crimes Trial in
1948.

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

Matt Wiser wrote:

If they had won, yes. But they didn't. They lost. Period. And Several of
the militarists got their necks stretched at the Tokyo War Crimes Trial in
1948.

I am not sure what you were trying to say, but I liked it, so keep it up.

--
Regards,

Venik

Visit my site: http://www.aeronautics.ru
If you need to e-mail me, please use the following subject line:
?Subject=Newsgr0ups_resp0 nse