Enola Gay, heroism or insanity?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Status
Not open for further replies.
I didnt realise Mrs Tibbets herself was named after a literary character

Enola; or, Her fatal mistake is an 1886 book written by Mary Young Ridenbaugh. It is notable for being the inspiration, indirectly, for the naming of the Enola Gay, the B-29 bomber airplane which dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Its commanding pilot, Colonel Paul Tibbets, named the aircraft after his mother, Enola Gay Tibbets (1893–1983), who was named after the title character of Ridenbaugh's book.

The book is introduced with the poem:

Oh, fatal day - oh, day of sorrow,
It was no trouble she could borrow;
But in the future she could see
The clouds of infelicity.
The story includes these passages:

He is the bird of ill omen.
How harsh his midnight cry!
It seems to shriek, in mournful sounds,
Death! Death!
The Prince of the Air certainly causes them [destructive cyclones],
since he has control of our atmosphere. They are displays of his wrath,
Oh! eternal woes! Deliver us from the "Prince of Darkness."
Deliver us from his fiery embraces. Rather fear Him that is able
to destroy both soul and body.
"In calling me by the strange name of 'Enola,' I wonder if my dear departed parents
received a glimpse of the future life of their child in a camera, speaking to them
of her life of loneliness," mused Enola, "for truly I am alone..."
('Enola' is 'alone' spelled backwards.)

We have been discussing the "clouds of sorrow" that have obscured a bright and beautiful life,
that afforded food for meditation. How many clouds have darkened the horizon of other valuable lives.
There are clouds too real, not figurative, that we will now contemplate. ...
The funnel-shaped cloud deals death and destruction to all that come within its whirling, deadly grasp.
When seeing the approach of such a cloud, it sends an agonizing thrill of horror into the heart of the beholder...
"...the vital question at issue now is, how to remedy the great evil that is about to engulf our moral law and prosperous government.
... I feel, that something should be speedily done to stem the tide of extravagance, threatening to ruin every civilized country on the face of the globe," said Mrs. [Enola] Dale.
 
FLYBOYJ said:
Would love to see those photos, priceless IMO!
Click to expand...
He had several of his photos (about 20" x 16") framed and hung in his office and I would stare at them for ages when I was there visiting Mom at work. I don't think any of them ever reached public domain. This was in the mid-70's long after the official photos had been declassified.

The guys that worked there with Mom were alot of fun...one of their favorite things to do, was catching someone's attention by tossing a wadded piece of paper and saying "Come in B-19...you're over-shooting the field!"
 
From what I have read (admittedly only on Wiki) only the high landing speed could be hung on the Bockscar pilot.

The mission date was changed because of weather
The faulty pump was known before take off meaning 660 gallons couldnt be used.
The target was obscured the pilot bombs on the bombardiers say so
The secondary target was bombed on visual
No clearance was given for landing so he came in anyway after circling until fuel was running out..

Apart from a high landing speed what other event was in his control?
 
Sweeny loitered too long at the initial rendezvous point (waiting for the second instrument ship) and this cost him a good deal of time and fuel. During that time, the smoke and cloud conditions were rapidly changing over Kokura causing him to lose his window of opportunity for the primary target.

This excessive loiter also cost him the much needed fuel for the return flight and nearly ended the mission in disaster.
 



The fuel pump - that was a "Pilot in Command" decision. When you take an aircraft with a known defect the PIC is responsible for the aftermath. A mission of this importance should have dictated the use of an aircraft 100% FMC. End of story!!!

He should not have circled for 20 minutes, radio or no radio. His fuel was critical, he could have landed normally, without incident (except for discharging emergency flares) and everything else would have probably been considered minor.

You don't "flame out" an undamaged aircraft, that's a big no-no now as it was then. The pilot is responsible for ensuring he has enough fuel to complete the required mission and flight planning should have dictated 30 minutes of reserve fuel.

Sweeny chose to remain on station to complete the mission. Although his intensions were in the right place, you don't do that at the expense of your aircraft and the crew. He's lucky he wasn't court martialed.
 

There were no Japanese fighters in the sky of Nagasaki as pilots went out for relaxation which was to be blamed by Nagasaki citizens later.
There were a dozen of Japanese fighters mixed with Zeros and Ki-100s above Kokura.

To save fuel for the final decisive battle expected in October, their intercept was limited minimum.
No surprise.
 
Sweeny spent almost too much time orbiting Kokura before moving to secondary Nagasaki, so if the Kokura defense fighters were sent to intercept, why did they not follow through? Their rate of climb should have seen them reach Bockscar and The Great Artiste during the orbits.

So this tells me that the photo of the ascending fighters must have been in the Kokura area but still leaves me wondering two things: why did the Kokura fighters break off and also, why wasn't the Nagasaki defense units alerted? The transit between Kokura and Nagasaki was 20 minutes, so that should have offered enough time for at least an alert.

It seems to me, that even with limited fuel, they should had enough to get to the B-29's altitude and conduct an intercept...
 

from wiki
During pre-flight inspection of Bockscar, the flight engineer notified Sweeney that an inoperative fuel transfer pump made it impossible to use 640 US gallons (2,400 l; 530 imp gal) of fuel carried in a reserve tank. This fuel would still have to be carried all the way to Japan and back, consuming still more fuel. Replacing the pump would take hours; moving the Fat Man to another aircraft might take just as long and was dangerous as well, as the bomb was live. Group Commander Colonel Paul Tibbets and Sweeney therefore elected to have Bockscar continue the mission.[10][11]
That says to me sweeney playing by the book would not have taken off but he and Tibbets agreed it was a small risk to the mission.


There are many other possibilities.

Check all aircraft before loading up the bomb. Dont attack cities with incendiaries near the primary target. Instruct Sweeney not to wait at rendezvous.
Was any reason given for his high landing speed? It just seems to me he got a bad rap for doing his best under difficult circumstances, I suspect an enquiry or court martial may have dropped a lot of brown stuff on other people also doing their best on the mission that ended the war. Bockscar missed the actual target point in Nagasaki meaning fewer people died but the war ended anyway, not a bad outcome.
 
Last edited:

Again the PIC holds the ultimate responsibility for his aircraft and crew. The fact that they decided to have the aircraft fly the mission not FMC shows the mindset of the era and the differences between aerial warfare then and now. Sweeney assumed the risk, I think anyone could guess that he wished he had that extra 600 gallons when his first engine flamed out.

pbehn said:
There are many other possibilities.

Check all aircraft before loading up the bomb. Dont attack cities with incendiaries near the primary target. Instruct Sweeney not to wait at rendezvous.
Click to expand...
Yep - all mitigating factors

pbehn said:
Was any reason given for his high landing speed?
Click to expand...

None, but I could guess he wanted to get down as fast as possible as he knew he was about to fun out of fuel.

As stated, I think his intentions were noble, but there was some poor decision making along the way. If a court marshal "would have" ensued I think many other people including Tibbets would have looked very bad. Hindsight is 20-20 but this is one that played out with the end result being positive.
 

If they had known Bockscar was the last A-bomb guest, they would have destroyed her even chasing to Nagasaki.
It was cloudy in Nagasaki and airmen of Ohmura Air Corps were exhausted from daily intercept.
A couple of air raid warnings were issued in the early morning but no guests came.
Commander thought they needed holiday.

Expecting the future situation like Hiroshima, Mayor of Nagasaki and his staff were just discussing the escape plan of citizens at 11:00AM when the A-bomb was dropped.
Other cities like Niigata decided escape plan by August 10 one after another. They were going into the protracted struggle to endure the war.
 
Probably the local air defense officials thought the 2 B-29s were just reconnaissance aircraft, they were used to hundred aircraft raids.
They saw no sense in wasting precious fuel on picture takers.
Hiroshima had been bombed only 3 days before, information coming thru military channels may not have made it clear that all the destruction at Hiroshima was caused by one bomb from one aircraft.
 
Crew of the aircraft, brave men doing their duty. The decision to drop atomic weapons? Not so straightforeward.
Any form of bombing that targets civillians is questionable. Hiroshima, nagasaki were the last in a long history of blanket killing, carried out by both sides During ww2.
It stands out, however, as being the only time in history when atomic (nuclear) weapons have been used in anger. It was an experiment as much as an act of war. No one knew exactly what the effects would be, or what the after effects would be.
An entire city wiped out with one bomb, in an instant, i question the morality of this, though fire and blanket bombing created the same result, but slowly.
People died after the blast, trying to locate loved ones, because radiation was an unknown.
The victims were innocent people, but that can be said of most military campaigns, unfortunately.
Did it save more lives by ending the war? No one can confidently say that. Some will say with no hesitation, but its conjecture, no matter what facts are used to substanciate.
These bombings did, if nothing else, alert the world to the terrifying power of nuclear weapons, and possibly prevent further use.
An horrific way to create peace, seeing the documented suffering of thousands of civillians, who had no part in military action, cant be overlooked.
Its a graphic illustration of how war has no upside, and how the division of good and bad is totally blurred by propoganda and patriotism.
 
DVH said:
Did it save more lives by ending the war? No one can confidently say that.
Click to expand...

I can and will - IT DID. 1,000,000 Japanese soldiers on the mainland ready to fight to the death if Japan was invaded. 8,000 aircraft still available to fight or partake in Kamakazi raids. Off shore thousands of allied soldiers awaiting to storm the beaches of mainland Japan. Here, read about the invasion plans...

Operation Downfall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From that article, let me put this into perspective on the expected casualities...

"Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals (awarded for combat casualties) were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan; the number exceeded that of all American military casualties of the 65 years following the end of World War II, including the Korean and Vietnam Wars. In 2003, there were still 120,000 of these Purple Heart medals in stock."

While I could agree with most of what you say, this is one area that is pretty obvious if one looks at the facts. I have family members who were on their way to Japan to participate in an invasion, I know how they felt when they were diverted back to the states!!!
 
Last edited:
How many Japanese were dying each month in the summer of 1945 with the "conventional" bombing? How many more would die if the first Island was invaded in Nov 1945 as planned and how many more by March with the second invasion (disregarding actual losses to the invasion, just how many more would the bombing campaign kill? . With both rail transport and coastal shipping mostly destroyed how many more would die of starvation and cold over the winter? While such figures and numbers are conjecture the assertions that few, if any, Japanese would die in the months to come vs the numbers lost in or due to the atomic bomb explosions is very wishful thinking indeed.

It was estimated that firing bombing of Toyko killed 80- 100,000 people but over 1 million were made homeless, Tokyo was firebombed several more times.
 
The Americans did not need to invade Japan they could have carried on with conventional and nuclear bombs. There is no doubt more people would have died people were starving all over the region. Thankfully the Japanese still had some sense of order, if they were lead by Hitler it may have been different.
 
pbehn said:
The Americans did not need to invade Japan they could have carried on with conventional and nuclear bombs. There is no doubt more people would have died people were starving all over the region.
Click to expand...
So the invasion was estimated to be a minimum of 6 months, 1 year maximum to acheive unconditional surrender. In the face of that type of resistance, how long would a total seige have lasted? A year, 18 months? And how many Japanese (soldier/civilian) would have perished from starvation, disease, malnutrition?

pbehn said:
Thankfully the Japanese still had some sense of order, if they were lead by Hitler it may have been different.
Click to expand...
Really hard to say, but when Hitler ordered Paulus and the 6th Army to fight to the last man, it didn't happen. Had the 6th Army been Imperial Japanese troops, they would have certainly fought to the last man.
 
Graugeist, exactly my point, a siege may have lasted so long it became a political problem for the USA, bombing a starving population, but that is immaterial to my argument I believe there were plans to drop an atomic bomb approximately every two weeks. The Japanese military no doubt would have fought to the last man and woman, thankfully when ordered to surrender they did.
 
I understand you kill people to save the rest of the people.
A nice logic for the war and I may use it too in the future.

What if they don't surrender?
When will you stop or not stop.

I am curious.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Enola Gay. Boeing's B-29 Superfortress - Missions that changed the world
Replies
0
Views
711
Dronescapes
S
Adherent or Mafia?
Replies
6
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
K
B-25G and B-25H information on spent 75mm cartridges - through hatch or port?
Replies
14
Views
2K
ThomasP
T
P
AM914 or AM920?
Replies
6
Views
1K
mjfur
M
A
1939-1942 FAA: Better aircraft or more aircraft?
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
5K
Admiral Beez
A
Menu
Log in
Register