It was the final nail in the coffin which brought Japan to realize it was better to end the war with out more blood spilled.
I for one do not feel bad about it. I think most people don't either. Hell I agree with the bombings.
Best Allied Heavy Bomber
- Thread starter carman1877
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
It was the final nail in the coffin which brought Japan to realize it was better to end the war with out more blood spilled.
I for one do not feel bad about it. I think most people don't either. Hell I agree with the bombings.
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
That I doubt. I think things were very clear from day 1. And why wait still after the second A-bomb???
The fact is that the military leaders turned a blind eye when their cities were being bombed into rubble. The firestorms were almost as destructive as the A-bombs. Sure, you needed an entire fleet for the conventional bombings but for the Japs it was the same anyhow. No, it seems clear to me that the bombing of cities could not have been decisive. Still important but more from a military point of view. Let's also look what would have happened if Germany under Hitler had been hit by A-bombs. Does anyone think Hitler would have folded? No, and most of the military leaders in Japan were just as insane as him. Appaling losses through suicide missions for months didn't seem to bother them. They were all ready to fight the Americans on Japanese soil till the last man.
Only when it became clear that they could not have won militarily, did things start to change. We must be aware not to look at this from a western point of view. For us the A-bomb was the pinnacle of the war. But the real nemesis of Japan was Russia, ever since 1904. When they saw they were going to lose all their territories in Manchuria and after that probably China, they realized the war could never have been fought to a standstill. The cabinet met to discuss capitulation hours after they heard of the Russian invasion. And not on the days the A-bombs fell. That seems to have been what triggered them.
That brought many of them to a different opinion. The emperor who had always been weak could finally have his say because there was a power vacuum.
So it was the Russian invasion or more in general the realisation that they could only lose militarily which was the turning point. Not the destruction of any city.
One more time because I want to stress this ... we should stop looking at this from a western point of view. That's like saying D-Day was the turning point in the ETO.
Kris
- Thread starter
- #83
carman1877
Airman
- 51
- May 14, 2009
Not sure if everybody knows this or not, but the B-17 could carry up to 17,600lbs. on short runs. It used special external bomb racks to carry the bombs.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
But it was the Emperor who called for the surrender and because he was a "living god" the Japanese Military machine was forced to comply, although there were a few who did attempt a coup.
This is text from a site I found, spells it out pretty good...
On July 26, word arrived at Potsdam that Winston Churchill had been defeated in his bid for reelection. Within hours, Truman, Stalin, and Clement Attlee (the new British prime minister, below) issued their warning to Japan: surrender or suffer "prompt and utter destruction." As had been the case with Stalin, no specific mention of the atomic bomb was made. This "Potsdam Declaration" left the emperor's status unclear by making no reference to the royal house in the section that promised the Japanese that they could design their new government as long as it was peaceful and more democratic. Anti-war sentiment was growing among Japanese civilian leaders, but no peace could be made without the consent of the military leaders. They still retained hope for a negotiated peace where they would be able to keep at least some of their conquests or at least avoid American occupation of the homeland. On July 29, 1945, the Japanese rejected the Potsdam Declaration.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
That's been discussed here before - it also has about a 300 mile range with the bomb load from what I understand.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Civettone, Hiroshima was the first ever atomic bomb (forget the trinity test shot). Only a handfull of people knew what an atomic detonation looked like and for the blast information to take a couple of days to filter upwards is understandable.
And answer me this. How was Russia going to invade Japan if they didnt have anyway to do it? The IJA/IJN were not a bunch of dummies and knew exactly who had the capability to invade and who didnt.
And answer me this. How was Russia going to invade Japan if they didnt have anyway to do it? The IJA/IJN were not a bunch of dummies and knew exactly who had the capability to invade and who didnt.
- Thread starter
- #87
carman1877
Airman
- 51
- May 14, 2009
I should have said this in the poll, but I meant only in World War Two. the B-29 did infact have an impact on the Pacific Conflict, but I dont think that many if any B-29s served in the Atlantic conflict, although i dont know much about where the B-29s were stationed. However I belive that I heard the lancaster dropped the most bombs out all allied bombers in the Atlantic theatre. Again though not 100% sure. The British were going to send lancasters over to fight japan after germany surrendered. Also like i said before the lancaster had its flaws too, like blind spots.
Last edited:
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
Flyboyj, there does seem to be a dubious relationship towards the emperor. On the one hand they regarded him as a god and the reason for their own petty little existence. And on the other hand they tried to keep him out of politics as much as possible and run Japan on their own. It is clear that the military was behind the war and the emperor had very little if anything to say about how it was being run.
So that shows that the leaders were hiding themselves behind the status of the emperor, knowing that they themselves or the institutes for which they stood would be preserved if the emperor would remain the nominal head of the "Empire".
As to Russia. I never said Russia was going to invade Japan. I said Japan was going to lose Manchuria and later China to Russia thereby ending the Empire. Only Japan would have been left. Japan still had a million and a half soldiers over there. Japan hoped to keep these parts after the armistice. Realizing that their biggest nemesis, the Soviet Union had now turned on them and had attacked them was a bigger shock than the dropping of the A-bombs. You have to look at the history of Japan and its geopolitical position. Traditionally the Japanese feared the Russians more than the Americans (though of course the latter was much more powerful by 1945).
Kris
So that shows that the leaders were hiding themselves behind the status of the emperor, knowing that they themselves or the institutes for which they stood would be preserved if the emperor would remain the nominal head of the "Empire".
Syscom, yes, the atomic bomb was something completely new but after a few hours the size of the destruction was well known to the Japanese leaders. They knew a single bomb had been dropped and that the entire city was gone... You don't need to be a scientist to put one and one together.
As to Russia. I never said Russia was going to invade Japan. I said Japan was going to lose Manchuria and later China to Russia thereby ending the Empire. Only Japan would have been left. Japan still had a million and a half soldiers over there. Japan hoped to keep these parts after the armistice. Realizing that their biggest nemesis, the Soviet Union had now turned on them and had attacked them was a bigger shock than the dropping of the A-bombs. You have to look at the history of Japan and its geopolitical position. Traditionally the Japanese feared the Russians more than the Americans (though of course the latter was much more powerful by 1945).
Kris
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The B-29 was never intended to serve in the ETO. Had the war in Europe lasted longer the Convair B-32 was supposed to replace the B-17 and B-24, but the ending of the war plus the plane's delay in production sealed that plan.
Lancasters did drop the most bombs in the ETO - they had the most opportunity to do so, it doesn't mean it was a better aircraft. As pointed out the B-29 was a far more capable aircraft.
Shortround6
Major General
According to some sources the B-17 dropped more bombs in Europe than the Lancaster, by about 5%.
Of course the B-17s might have numbered just few thousand more plane in the ETO.
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
Why did they consider the B-32 for the ETO and not the B-29? I thought their range was about the same as they were designed around the same requirements.
edit: maximum range was 3800 miles which seems to be less than that of the B-29.
But wasn't the production of B-17 and B-24 to be switched to B-29 and B-32 if the war in Europe had dragged on?
Kris
Last edited:
The red army was the largest army in the world at that point. The Japanese saw a certain possibility to end the war on favourable conditions if the US invasion went wrong. With the second more mobilized and more more powerful super power turned against them that chance was gone. And the invasion of manchuria was a massive defeat in a very short timeframe. That is not soviet propaganda, that is plain truth.
The B-29 did not "end the war". It was a factor in it like many others.
BTW the firebombings of tokio caused more immediate casualties and destruction than any of the atomic bombings, still no surrender.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
In the Pacific, logistics was the crucial factor on how powerfull you were. Just because Russia had a large army didnt mean they were in the Pacific or equipped for an amphib war.
The Atomic bomb ended the war. And it was the B29 that carried it.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Folks, keep this thread on topic.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Another factor in the B29's favor was its ability to carry two large naval mines far from base. The other three could carry small mines, but not with the range the B29 had.
Very true, but the Lancaster could carry a heavier bomb load over a longer distance than the B-17. Not saying the B-17 was not a fine aircraft. It surely was.
- Thread starter
- #97
carman1877
Airman
- 51
- May 14, 2009
What about defensive armament, the B-29 had the best and obviously the B-24 and B-17 had good protection but what about the lancasters .303s. Was the Lancaster well defended, except for the bottom which again was vulnerable on later models.
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
I also read that the remote controlled turrets of the B-29 were too slow to take on jet fighters over Korea. This is an important element considering that jet fighters were going to become the standard weapon after 1945 had the war in Europe and the Pacific dragged on longer. That could have become a problem.
Oh, but that does mean the B-32 would have become the best bomber, interesting!
Kris
Oh, but that does mean the B-32 would have become the best bomber, interesting!
Kris
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
This was true as the increased closure rate did not give gunners a good firing solution, but from what I understand the turrets on the B-36 did correct this.
MikeGazdik
Senior Airman
The B-29 was a quantum leap in performance compared to any other bomber. Much the same as the Me 262 was to fighter aircraft.
Each are in a class to themselves, regardless of thier total contribution to the war.
Having a "best heavy bomber" competition almost has to exclude the Superfortress, much the same as the "best fighter" is usually stated "best piston engined fighter". Because once you include the Messerschmitt there is no comparison.
That being said, I would rank the Liberator and Lancaster as near equals, with the Flying Fortress just behind.
Each are in a class to themselves, regardless of thier total contribution to the war.
Having a "best heavy bomber" competition almost has to exclude the Superfortress, much the same as the "best fighter" is usually stated "best piston engined fighter". Because once you include the Messerschmitt there is no comparison.
That being said, I would rank the Liberator and Lancaster as near equals, with the Flying Fortress just behind.
