Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Very good point, Shinpachi, but while most people have the ability to learn from past mistakes and tragedies, it seems that politicians and leaders don't.This thread looks interesting to me because I think if we can find a good answer we may be able to let North Koreans open their doors without using our military power now. Their style is a copy of pre-war Japanese.
The bombs weren't so much an incremental increase over firebombing where the destructive energy was on the ground rather than in the bomb, as they were a distinct new and overwhelming means that overcame the resolute fanaticism. Turning up the heat slowly probable wouldn't have had the same result.
I'd like to know your references on that. From what I understand, Japanese mechanics were pretty skilled and well trained. Japanese aircraft as a whole did have an interchangeability issue that has been well documented. There was probably greater reasoning why some of their aircraft were sent back to the factory; perhaps limitations from the manufacture on what type of maintenance and repairs were permitted in the field.Japan didn't have the backyard mechanics and farm boys that enabled the US to do fairly complex maintenance/repair on planes in the field. Instead their planes were shipped back for factory repair. Few made it back thanks to the subs.
I'd like to know your references on that. From what I understand, Japanese mechanics were pretty skilled and well trained. Japanese aircraft as a whole did have an interchangeability issue that has been well documented. There was probably greater reasoning why some of their aircraft were sent back to the factory; perhaps limitations from the manufacture on what type of maintenance and repairs were permitted in the field.
When you say "fairly complex maintenance/repair on planes in the field," what are you talking about? Structural repairs? Engine overhauls? Mechanics aren't "cut loose" to make repairs at their beckon, usually there was a maintenance/ engineering officer or a factory representative that provided the required data in the case of say major structural repairs for example. Given the data and the tools available, I think all combatants during WW2 had very capable mechanics across the board.
You still had the JAAF as well as land based IJN units, it is possible that there were shortages but more than likely later in the war.At this point it's admittedly hearsay. However, the discussion in Shattered Sword about the Japanese mechanics being trained specialists in short supply, i.e. a major loss to the IJN at Midway, does tend to corroborate the theory.
You still had the JAAF as well as land based IJN units, it is possible that there were shortages but more than likely later in the war.
I'd buy that rather than pointing to aircraft maintenance and the specific tasks accomplished and/ or permitted in the field. With all due respect to your source that compared Japanese mechanics to US boys, unless one could touch on specifics, you're dealing with loose speculation. Again, maintainers are pretty limited on what they are authorized to do on aircraft and engines (not to say any mechanic bent or violated rules to get things fixed). There might have been some "farm mechanic" innovations on locally manufactured tools to get the job done easier and/ or faster.The point regarding Japan's aircraft maintenance logistics, while I think sound and significant, was made rather succinctly in support of Oldskeptic's earlier-made point about the effectiveness of allied submarines.
it took the allieds 2 bombs before the Japanese figured surrendering might not be such a bad idea after all.
Given the short time between the two bombs, I, personally am not too sure that the plan wasn't always to drop both.
In WWII nobody much knew what atomic bombs were about or what the eventual consequences would be … it was a new weapon with a BIG explosion. The scientists might have known about radiation fallout and might not have had a complete grasp, but the impetus was to attack and win the war. Germany was already beaten.
I think the Atomic Bomb was dropped because we had it, the Japanese had not indicated to us that our surrender terms, which had been clearly communicated to them, were acceptable, and because we wanted to avoid excessive casualties. Later we knew the horror of fallout and the cost in human suffering. Today we see things as if the people in charge KNEW what they were starting. I believe we knew we would kill within a certain zone, but did NOT know the ultimate consequences of the radiation and subsequent human toll. Maybe the scientists did, but maybe not the civilian or military leaders.
If we HAD known, then the decision to drop the bomb might have been a lot harder, but let's remember that the attack on Pearl Harbor was the largest loss of life in a sneak attack ever previously recorded by the USA. The "powers that be" might not have been as concerned about Japanese casualty consequences as much as punishing the perpetrators of the Pearl Harbor attack.
If we had known all the consequences, I'd like to think we might have done it differently … but I can't say for sure. I have spoken with WWII vets who had sympathy with the Japanese and with vets who only wanted to kill them after Pearl Harbor, and still DO. Unprovoked attack will DO that … but WAS it unprovoked?
We tried to cut off their raw materials and they responded as a nation must ... or die. I have NO idea what was fair but, if the reverse had been true, what would WE have responded with? gain, I can't say.
In retrospect, the atomic bombs were pretty much inevitable once we had them unless Japan had surrendered first. They didn't and it was an unfortunate necessity to prevent loss of life in the anticipate invasion.
We DID have an alternative … the US had developed a copy of the V-1, called the JB-2 (jet bomb-2) Loon and could have used thousands of them on Japan. Likely it would have caused more casualties than the A-bomb, but without radiation.
Which would be better in an ideal world? If YOU are President Truman, what would YOU decide, given the choices: V-1 assault, atomic bomb, or invasion … with the current war casualty list in your desk? ... given that we were attacked by surprise to start with (Truman wasn't President when we were attacked) and that we were spending into heavy debt to win the war, as was everyone else.
I'd probably have made the same call as Truman, but cannot be sure since real deaths are not involved in a "what if."
If we had hindsight, then no. But we didn't HAVE hindsight. Onl a new weapon that promised to be a GOOD one.
Who knew it would later be the impetus to cease world war in 1945? WWI had not done it ... maybe the new scale of A-bomb destruction WOULD ...
A tough call either way since large casulaties were cerainly suspected.