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.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The atomic bomb didn't single-handedly bring Japan to its knees. The failed negotiations with the Soviets and the invasion of Manchuria had at least as much if not more to do with that. I know people like to think "the bomb won the war period" because that way no one has to feel bad about it anymore but it's not so easy.
That I doubt. I think things were very clear from day 1. And why wait still after the second A-bomb???There was only three days between the first and second.
They surrendered after the 2nd, once the political leaders realized just what was going to happen.
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.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.
That's been discussed here before - it also has about a 300 mile range with the bomb load from what I understand.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.
The B-29 ended the war probably 3 years earlier excluding the atomic bombings. The mission was more treacherous because of the over water route and between the B-29s raids and the allied navies starving Japan, Japan was just about at her knees in August 1945. The -29 got the job done quicker than any conventional bomber of the day could have done, to me that makes up for the "impact" of the war, and again I won't even bring up the atomic bombing.
Service life? The Lancaster fought in one theater in one war - the B-29 fought against Jet aircraft and was the first dedicated nuclear bomber leading the Strategic Air Command into the 1950s. It had at least twice the service life as a front line bomber aircraft than the Lancaster did. Again RAF Bomber Command had to "borrow" B-29s because the Lincoln couldn't do the job in the post war years. Again a half of generation ahead of any of its contemporaries.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.Sorry
but how do you reconcile failed negotiations for a conditional peace with the ability of your enemies to reduce your cities to ash, in the blink of an eye, from one aircraft as comparable contributors to Japan's surrender?
Japan wasn't about to surrender, they were about to inflict colossal casualties on incoming US forces as they tried to take mainland Japan - does that sound like a nation on the brink of collapse owing to flaky conditional peace talks? The most that senior Japanese commanders hoped to get from talks with the Soviets was to buy some time until that ground offensive started, they saw the considerable casualties they could inflict on US forces as the real leverage for conditional peace talks.
Hiroshima, Nagasaki, next on the list was Kokura Arsenal and then Niigata - Groves was even preparing more targets for the eventuality that they didn't work; Japan surrendered before there was no Japan left to surrender.
The red army was the largest army in the world at that point.
The B-29 did not "end the war". It was a factor in it like many others.
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.
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