If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Bernardz wrote:
In article , says... "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? Yes. This cannot be right surely the effects of many small bombs over a wider area are bigger then one big bomb in one region. I would think so too because of the "overkill" in close proximity to the blast. Not much use (war-wise) to pulverize an area near the blast while missing an area far away, which, if you had 'spread out' the blast you'd have affected.. -- -Gord. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
hiroshima facts wrote in message
Even in the worst cases of conventional bombing (like Tokyo), only 10% of the affected population was killed. Pre war population of Tokyo around 5,900,000, the firestorm raid killed 83,783 according to Tokyo police, 1.4%, other estimates have higher numbers of deaths and a smaller population due to evacuations. Hamburg and Dresden suffered losses in the 4 to 5% range in the firestorm raids, as a percentage of total population. Depending on what population figures for the people present is accepted. If the homeless figure plus deaths is the "population affected" figure then the Tokyo death rate was around 7 to 8% of population affected. In most of the Japanese cities firebombed, the death rate was about 1%. This is presumably a percentage of total population present. The A-bombs killed about half of the people in the affected area both times. Pre war combined population of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was around 520,000 So presumably the "affected area/population" is being defined as something less than the total city, only the districts damaged to a defined extent and affects on people again to a defined extent. Arthur Harris' acreage destroyed table says 75% of Hamburg and 59% of Dresden were destroyed during the war. The Tokyo fire storm raid destroyed nearly 16 square miles or nearly 25% of all buildings in the city, over 1,000,000 left homeless. The attack on Hiroshima killed around 80,000 and made a further 180,000 homeless, so 80/260 or 31% of the people affected, using homeless and killed as the definition of affected. As noted above Tokyo comes in at 7 to 8% using this measure. One problem with comparing the data is the non atomic attacks were against alerted cities, with people in shelters, the atomic strikes were against unalerted cities and it makes a big difference to the casualty figures. On 5 April 1943 the USAAF hit the Antwerp industrial area with 172 short tons of bombs, killing 936 civilians, it would appear the population assumed the bombers were going somewhere else. There are plenty of such examples from the air war in Europe, as late as April 1945 with the RAF attack on Potsdam, the population appears to have assumed an attack on Berlin, one estimate is perhaps 5,000 dead, the pre war population was 74,000, 1,962 short tons of bombs dropped. Given the difficulty in knowing the population numbers at the time of the attacks on axis cities it would be interesting to know how the estimates of populations in specific parts of the cities were done. I would expect a nuclear weapon to be more lethal to those in the target area, mainly the difference between most damage being inflicted almost instantaneously and fires breaking out rapidly versus the time it takes to put hundreds of bombers over the target. Geoffrey Sinclair Remove the nb for email. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"hiroshima facts" wrote in message om... "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. I think you are going to have to very carefully define what *you* mean by "the affected area". You apparently don't mean to include the entire cities of Hiroshima & Nagasaki. I would like to see your interpretation of "the affected area" as applied to Tokyo as well. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How accurate was B-26 bombing? | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 59 | March 3rd 04 10:10 PM |
Area bombing is not a dirty word. | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 82 | February 11th 04 02:10 PM |
WW2 bombing | Bernardz | Military Aviation | 10 | January 14th 04 01:07 PM |
WarPac War Plans-any conventional? | Matt Wiser | Military Aviation | 1 | December 8th 03 09:29 PM |
Looking for Info. on Vietnam Bombing | Seraphim | Military Aviation | 0 | October 19th 03 01:52 AM |