Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Unfortunately much of what Sweeny wrote about the mission has been disputed by other members of the crew.According to Sweeny, the bomb was released at 9,600 meters and they were buffeted by 5 shockwaves as they were departing the target area.
9,600 meters as almost 31,500 feet and is consistent with their assigned altitude of 30,000 feet over Kokura.
Not 28,900 feet.
Would have had a tremendous impact if it had been employed en masse.Well, now that we've taken that turn. How about the plane that did the least to alter the outcome of the war: The BA 349 Natter
World War II’s Worst Airplane
The product of an ambitious designer and a doomed regime, the Bachem Ba 349 Natter was a radical idea that almost worked.www.smithsonianmag.com
We can disagree. The bombing survey's opinion is that the B-29 bombing campaign effectively destroyed the Japanese population's will to fight as well as crippled Japanese industry. That was the foundation of the surrender in 1945. Otherwise the war goes to 1948 or 1949, possibly ending in a stalemate.Would have had a tremendous impact if it had been employed en masse.
Anyway, it's definitely not the B-29 which turned the tide. Wasn't used in Europe, and Japan didn't surrender because of the atomic bomb.
Kris
There's no doubt that Japan suffered from the B-29's conventional and atomic attacks and that her population was war weary, but Japan, like Germany, was not a democracy and the decision to end the war was made by the emperor.We can disagree. The bombing survey's opinion is that the B-29 bombing campaign effectively destroyed the Japanese population's will to fight as well as crippled Japanese industry. That was the foundation of the surrender in 1945. Otherwise the war goes to 1948 or 1949, possibly ending in a stalemate.
The leading reasons (in no particular order) for Japan's surrender include;
The loss of empire and naval blockade
The destruction of Japan's economy via conventional bombings
The threat of direct invasion of the home islands
The atomic bombings
The Soviet entry into the war and the loss of Japan's Asian empire and armed forces.
The threat of Soviet participation in the invasion of Japan.
We can disagree. The bombing survey's opinion is that the B-29 bombing campaign effectively destroyed the Japanese population's will to fight as well as crippled Japanese industry. That was the foundation of the surrender in 1945. Otherwise the war goes to 1948 or 1949, possibly ending in a stalemate.
The fear of stalemate on the American side was real. America's support for the war was flagging and the casualty rates for Iwo Jima and Okinawa were viewed as unacceptable to the American public and the impact of the Kamikaze attacks raised significant concerns as to the cost of the invasion. It was a significant deciding factor in Truman's decision to use the bomb.It would never end in a stalemate. Japan was already beaten for all intents and purposes in 1945 (that does not mean they would have surrendered in 1945). Now it would have cost a lot more lives on both sides to finish it off by having to invade the home islands.
The war would have continued to 1947 tops, and it would cost a lot of lives.
The fear of stalemate on the American side was real. America's support for the war was flagging and the casualty rates for Iwo Jima and Okinawa were viewed as unacceptable to the American public and the impact of the Kamikaze attacks raised significant concerns as to the cost of the invasion. It was a significant deciding factor in Truman's decision to use the bomb.
It's hard to ignore hindsight. Contemporary thinking (1945) questioned whether or not the US population would be willing to absorb the kinds of casualties that the US was experiencing in the later stages of the war. The bombing survey points out that the US had very little understanding of what was going on inside of Japan.Fear of something does not make something absolute.
Of course we are looking at things from a hindsight perspective, but there was never going to be a stalemate, especially once the Soviet Union entered the Pacific fight. Japan's military was already beaten back and for all intents and purposes defeated. It was only a matter of time, and many lives would be lost.
I don't disagree that the fear of great loss of life was a factor in dropping the bombs. I would wager to say that dropping the bombs was just as much if not more a show of force to Stalin and about solidifying our place as the sole Super Power at the time.
One possibility not on the above list: the potential of the government's collapse and civil revolt.
Richard Frank mentioned this as one of the possible contributors to surrender. See the following video from the Unauthorized History of the Pacific War Podcast channel on YouTube:
Downfall-Why Japan Surrendered with very special guest Richard Frank-Episode 225
You're discounting the submarine forces contributions immensely. They strangled the Japanese mainland's supply lines, and the citizens were starving to death without the foodstuffs from other lands. No oil got thru, either.We can disagree. The bombing survey's opinion is that the B-29 bombing campaign effectively destroyed the Japanese population's will to fight as well as crippled Japanese industry. That was the foundation of the surrender in 1945. Otherwise the war goes to 1948 or 1949, possibly ending in a stalemate.
The USN subs did not begin to specifically target Japan's oil supplies from the DEI until late 1943. The last oil convoy sailed from Singapore in Jan 1945. In Q1 1945 about 800,000 barrels of mostly aviation fuel reached mainland Japan. After that, with US forces firmly based on Luzon in the Philippines air power as well as subs could be brought to bear on shipping in the South China Sea.You're discounting the submarine forces contributions immensely. They strangled the Japanese mainland's supply lines, and the citizens were starving to death without the foodstuffs from other lands. No oil got thru, either.
France had plenty of aircraft. But their supply and maintenance were woefully inadequate.Is there any aircraft that if in (reasonable) abundance could have turned the tide for France? The quick pick may be the Dewoitine D.520, but I don't think France was defeated because their M.S.406 and MB.152 were uncompetitive with the Bf 109s. What of ground attack, like the Bréguet 693? Or modern, fast bombers like the LeO 45?
View attachment 777793
French supply chain had to be a pain. For example, in addition to the US-sourced Curtiss Hawk 75, France had six entirely distinct single-seat, single-engine, monoplane fighter programs in production between 1936 to 1940.France had plenty of aircraft. But their supply and maintenance were woefully inadequate.
You're discounting the submarine forces contributions immensely. They strangled the Japanese mainland's supply lines, and the citizens were starving to death without the foodstuffs from other lands. No oil got thru, either.