Hiroshima: a (probably overly long) exposé

[Ted Striker]

The British condoned firebombing because they argued that precision bombing was impossible, and yet, the US proved that to be a lie.

How "precision" do you think a bunch of big azz bombers, travelling at several hundred miles per hour, and loaded with 500 pound, unguided bombs are going to be?

Why then, did the US conduct such a heavy firebombing campaign in Japan?

Cause making a roundtrip flight from London to Tokyo was impossible???

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by techumseh


Their equipment and tactics for mobile warfare were superior to those of the British and Americans, who were more casualty averse and overly dependent on airpower. The Red Army had fought the Germans for 5 years and were proficient in blitzkrieg tactics.

In Aug 1945, the Japanese had 49 divisions and 2000 aircraft facing the Soviets. The Red army had a 1.2:1 edge in manpower and a 5:1 superiority in tanks and a 2:1 edge in aircraft. The attacked on Aug 8, and the Kwantung Army began surrendering on the 18th. During this time a very rapid advance liberated most of Manchuria and killed up to 80,000 Japanese combatants. Nearly 600,000 prisoners were taken. 8,000 Soviets were killed. The area taken was about the size of France and Germany put together and had much more primitive communications.

duh

You just proved my point.

A 5:1 edge in tanks and a 2:1 edge in air power. Of course they are going to roll the Japanese in a land battle that is right next door to them. If they hadn't, with those odds stacked in their favor, they would have been shown to be completely incompetent.

Those Blitzkrieg tactics don't work when you island hop though. That's the whole point. You can't roll a tank division through an underground cavern that's loaded with a bunch of crazy fanatics that want to give their lives trying to kill you.

The Soviets were total newbies at island hopping.

[Admiral]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


How "precision" do you think a bunch of big azz bombers, travelling at several hundred miles per hour, and loaded with 500 pound, unguided bombs are going to be?



Cause making a roundtrip flight from London to Tokyo was impossible???

I think you misunderstand. The point wasn't that the British didn't firebomb Tokyo, but that the US was capable of firebombing both Germany/Occupied Europe and Japan, and they chose to conduct firebombing in Japan, and precision bombing in Europe.

Also, let me clarify my descriptions. The bombing conducted by Britain, and the US over Japan, was "area bombing." This meant that there was no attempt at aiming for military/industrial centers, and that, in order to make it effective, the bombs were dropped over the densest urban centers. Now, given Europe's history, the industrial areas were generally outside cities. In order to conduct their bombing campaign, Britain (and the US in Japan) had to ignore industrial targets.
The British in Europe claimed that it was impossible, or too costly, to bomb Germany in the day-time, and that this was the reason for the necessity of firebombing. Yet, the US, for whatever reason, refused to believe this, and ran its air-raids in the day-time. With the extant bomb sites, and some experience, it was quite possible to strike industrial complexes and military compounds without any need to, say, obliterate Dresden.
My point is that, given the above, why did the US choose to forego firebombing in Germany, but not in Japan? And for the record, it had nothing to do with air defense, as Germany's air-defense network was much more advanced and effective than Japan's.

As to the sneak attack on US soil argument, that doesn't really hold weight. 3000ish people died at Pearl Harbor. It was almost unprovoked, and is certainly not justifiable. Also, let me point out that I do not deny that the Japanese conducted fairly routine atrocities. However, we knew, in 1942, that Germany was conducting atrocities on a much higher scale. The point is that 3k military personnel doesn't really stack up well against 100k people, many civilians, in the firebombing of Tokyo alone. Besides, technically, Germany was attacking us all through 1941, as their U-boats were targetting American ships going to England.

[Ted Striker]

The US chose "precision" bombing in Germany because the Brits were doing the firebombing already.

They did it in Japan because they were the only airforce there.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Admiral


An interesting tidbit relating to the firebombings of Germany.
The US never engaged in it. The US spent the entire war (that they participated in) conducting precision bombing, during the daytime, over occupied Europe. The British condoned firebombing because they argued that precision bombing was impossible, and yet, the US proved that to be a lie. Why then, did the US conduct such a heavy firebombing campaign in Japan?

Bull****. The USAF was involved in the Dresden raids, and the earlier firebomings as well IIRC.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Dissident
you don't think racism had anything to do with the use of the bomb?

I doubt they would have used it on the germans.

Yes they were going to drop one on Germany and one on Japan. However the German war when to fast in the end to completion and so they had an extra bomb for Japan.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Geronimo
The red army did a superb job in manchuria, but how do you back up your claims that the allies were less effective at blitzkrieg? The allies blitzkreiged through western europe even faster than did the soviets through eastern europe despite the fact that the soviets had greatly superior tanks to the allies throughout the war.

The Soviets were also facing most of the Nazi troops. Their western defense was a thin line in comparison.

[Imran Siddiqui]

However, we knew, in 1942, that Germany was conducting atrocities on a much higher scale. The point is that 3k military personnel doesn't really stack up well against 100k people, many civilians, in the firebombing of Tokyo alone. Besides, technically, Germany was attacking us all through 1941, as their U-boats were targetting American ships going to England.

I wonder if you know how human psychology works? Why do you think the Brits were so gung ho about firebombing Germany? Couldn't be because of the Battle of Britain? Just because 100k is far more than 3k doesn't mean the US wasn't pissed as all Hell that Japan committed a sneak attack against us at Pearl Harbor, and, of course, we were going to make them pay for what they did.

[techumseh]

You don't crack 50 divisions in ten days, even with a lot of tanks, unless you're really good, Ted. Sorry. Have you ever wondered what the Allied vs. German tank and aircraft ratios were in France during 1944? The ratios were roughly similar to the Manchurian campaign, and yet it took the British and Americans 7 weeks to advance 50km.

Only when the Germans were completely exhausted were the Allies able to break out. In this, they were assisted greatly by the simultaneous Red Army offensive which destroyed Army Group Centre and advanced over 500km to the Polish border.

I agree that amphipious ops were a different matter. The smaller scale meant the Japanese could intensively fortify the defensive area, something they excelled at. And, yes, the Soviets were newbies at amphibious assaults. But they did well enough to capture their objectives.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Those Blitzkrieg tactics don't work when you island hop though. That's the whole point. You can't roll a tank division through an underground cavern that's loaded with a bunch of crazy fanatics that want to give their lives trying to kill you.

It's not there weren't cities in Manchuria. In fact there were lots. There's not much difference between attacking a city and attacking an island - you need to dig out an entrenched enemy in both cases.

Besides, why would anybody want to attack into an underground cavern? That appears to be a strategic mistake. You just screen it with infantry and clear the rest of the island. They have to come out sooner or later. If there are civilians in there it's highly unlikely that you can save them anyway.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by techumseh
You don't crack 50 divisions in ten days, even with a lot of tanks, unless you're really good, Ted. Sorry. Have you ever wondered what the Allied vs. German tank and aircraft ratios were in France during 1944? The ratios were roughly similar to the Manchurian campaign, and yet it took the British and Americans 7 weeks to advance 50km.

Only when the Germans were completely exhausted were the Allies able to break out. In this, they were assisted greatly by the simultaneous Red Army offensive which destroyed Army Group Centre and advanced over 500km to the Polish border.

I agree that amphipious ops were a different matter. The smaller scale meant the Japanese could intensively fortify the defensive area, something they excelled at. And, yes, the Soviets were newbies at amphibious assaults. But they did well enough to capture their objectives.

BS

The Japanese had brought many of their troops out of Manchuria for the specific purpose of defending the homeland. They knew it was a lost cause and gave it up as a delaying tactic. (By the way, fighting raged on in Manchuria after the Emperor agreed to surrender).

The Soviet army was the most fearsome and mature land army on the planet at that time.

The Japanese army in Manchuria at that time was basically a bunch of n00bs, with no armor or artillery whatsover, with a serious depletion of manpower, no elite units, and a lack of manpower.

There is nothing extraordinary about what the Soviets did. It's like sending an NFL All Pro linebacker against a high school varsity player. You can't claim good coaching when the odds are stacked that way.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
The US chose "precision" bombing in Germany because the Brits were doing the firebombing already.

They did it in Japan because they were the only airforce there.

Actually they did try Precision Bombing when the B-29 first arrived. However the plane prove to be not up to the task. A lot of pilot will tell you the B-29 was not that all great plane that some will try to make it out to be.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


It's not there weren't cities in Manchuria. In fact there were lots. There's not much difference between attacking a city and attacking an island - you need to dig out an entrenched enemy in both cases.

Blitzkrieg was developed on the plains of Western and Eastern Europe, which included cities.

Totally different from amphibiously assaulting a fortified island.

Besides, why would anybody want to attack into an underground cavern? That appears to be a strategic mistake. You just screen it with infantry and clear the rest of the island. They have to come out sooner or later. If there are civilians in there it's highly unlikely that you can save them anyway.

I'm sure your tactics would have worked better than the Marine and Army commanders on the ground that ordered this very thing.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


The Soviets were also facing most of the Nazi troops. Their western defense was a thin line in comparison.

Yes we herd that before. Only old men over 65 and kids under 15 with no guns to shoot at us.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Geronimo


The red army did a superb job in manchuria, but how do you back up your claims that the allies were less effective at blitzkrieg? The allies blitzkreiged through western europe even faster than did the soviets through eastern europe despite the fact that the soviets had greatly superior tanks to the allies throughout the war.

I doubt we could be sure which was truly better at that type of warfare in the absence of any battles that pitted the one against the other.

See my other post. It's not true that the western allies moved faster than the Soviets. There were only two major allied breakthroughs on the western front, one in Normandy and the other after the Rhine crossing at the end of the war. In both cases, they only occured when German strength was depleted and reserves were non-existent. There's no case that I'm aware of of a major Allied breakthrough where the Germans still had a mobile reserve.

As for the Allied blitzkreig (liberation of France), the Soviets liberated double the territory during the same period. Better tanks, better tactics, less risk aversion and less dependence on airpower to clear the way made the difference. BTW, the British with a severe shortage of manpower by the end of the war, were considerably less aggressive than the Americans.