Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
From late 1943, P-51Bs (supplemented by P-51Ds from mid-1944) were used by the USAAF's Eighth Air Force to escort bombers in raids over Germany, while the RAF's 2 TAF and the USAAF's Ninth Air Force used the Merlin-powered Mustangs as fighter-bombers, roles in which the Mustang helped ensure Allied air superiority in 1944.[4] The P-51 was also in service with Allied air forces in the North African, Mediterranean and Italian theatres, and saw limited service against the Japanese in the Pacific War.
You're missing the point. In your scenario, England has fallen. That means the bombers would have to be launched from North America, most likely Newfoundland which meant a roundtrip distance of 5,700 miles. The original point of the B36 being built was to be able to launch bombers that could hit Germany from North America if the need arose. The problem is that while it was possible to build a bomber to do that, there were no fighters available that could.
The P51D had a max range of 1,650 miles with external tanks. The P38, the US's other long range fighter could go 1,300 miles. This was maximum cruising range and combat range would have been reduced to around 1,450 and 1,100 miles respectively. Even if we assume that the Allies would have maintained control of Iceland and put their fighters there, it is still around 1,500 miles from Iceland to Berlin, one way, going straight over Britain. That makes it a suicide mission for any escort fighters that would go with the bombers.
Assuming the Germans were smart they would attack the formations over England forcing the fighters to engage and use up as much of their fuel as possible. The bombers then could have been intercepted sans escorts over the Channel and torn apart.
True, but by 1943, actually late 1942 when Chicago Pile-1 went critical, the entire project changed from purely theoretical into possible. The military went into full on planning mode in 1943 discussing targeting priorities and setting up Project Alberta to design the delivery system for the bomb.
The reason for this is that they knew almost from the outset that a guntype uranium bomb was virtually guaranteed to work, this fact combined with the small amounts of uranium they had is the reason this type wasn't tested. Once they had secured the ability to enrich the uranium to sufficient levels (which was done by 1943) the bomb became a "reality".
The project was ultimately delayed into 1945 do to issues with the plutonium bombs. This type was important as they were able to produce plutonium from the reactors and hence had a much larger/infinite supply. The original intent was to build a guntype plutonium bomb, but this proved impossible do to the faster fission rate of plutonium, this is the abandoned "Thin Man" design. That forced them to move wholesale into developing the plutonium implosion bombs, "Fat Man" and it was this type tested at Trinity.
Until a plutonium bomb became workable, they would not have been able to build more than a couple bombs based on the "Little Boy" design before exhausting the available supplies of uranium.
O.K., I can see that you and I are not really saying anything different. But I still maintain it is a poor choice of words to say the bomb "became a reality" in 1943. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that in 1943 it became clear that the bomb would become a reality in the next couple of years? There was no "Little Boy" type design ready to be detonated in 1943.
O.K., I can see that you and I are not really saying anything different. But I still maintain it is a poor choice of words to say the bomb "became a reality" in 1943. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that in 1943 it became clear that the bomb would become a reality in the next couple of years? There was no "Little Boy" type design ready to be detonated in 1943.
I concede the point and should have been clearer on what I met by "becoming a reality". I did not mean to imply that a "Little Boy" was ready to be used in 1943, it was simply that point in time that they knew they would be able to actually make one.
I doubt we would have nuked the Germans. We share much culture with them and I believe our gov knew they would surrender. The Japanese were different. They were dug in and the estimate was that it would take 1 million American casualties to win the final victory over them on their home soil. My dad was a Marine in WWII and he was on an invasion ship in the first wave when the bomb was dropped.
Contrary to what someone said here about the Japanese being ready to surrender I will pass on my Dad's experience. My Dad was a vet of Guadacanal, Bougainville and Guam. My Dad missed the battle of Iwo Jima as he was wounded on Guam. He got out of the hospital and was on the invasion ship for Japan when the bomb was dropped as I said.
He saw the bunkers and the fortifications with his own eyes. He said they had narrow gauge railways underground to supply the bunkers. It would have been hell to take those main islands. My Dad would have surely died so you won't ever hear me complain about dropping the bomb.
You can multiply X 10 the Japanese dead in a conventional invasion as opposed to the bomb and surrender.
For the sake of argument, what if the roles were reversed?
Say Germany put together a bomb first, Do you think the US and GB would have been targets or would they simply have made an example out of the Soviet Union to scare us into submission?
Some people think we wouldn't have bombed Germany over culture reasons, do you think they would have done the same for us?
I doubt we would have nuked the Germans. We share much culture with them and I believe our gov knew they would surrender. The Japanese were different. They were dug in and the estimate was that it would take 1 million American casualties to win the final victory over them on their home soil. My dad was a Marine in WWII and he was on an invasion ship in the first wave when the bomb was dropped.
Contrary to what someone said here about the Japanese being ready to surrender I will pass on my Dad's experience. My Dad was a vet of Guadacanal, Bougainville and Guam. My Dad missed the battle of Iwo Jima as he was wounded on Guam. He got out of the hospital and was on the invasion ship for Japan when the bomb was dropped as I said.
He saw the bunkers and the fortifications with his own eyes. He said they had narrow gauge railways underground to supply the bunkers. It would have been hell to take those main islands. My Dad would have surely died so you won't ever hear me complain about dropping the bomb.
You can multiply X 10 the Japanese dead in a conventional invasion as opposed to the bomb and surrender.
You and your Dad are 100% correct and the person who said the Japanese were ready to surrender was off base. Even after the second atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki on Aug. 9, 1945, the Japanese inner cabinet was deadlocked three to three about accepting the Postdam terms. At that point, contrary to normal practice, the emperor intervened and the three holdouts capitulated to his wishes. The atomic bombs were apparently a strong factor in the emperor's decision. The three cabinet members who wanted to continue the war were General Anami (the army minister), General Umezu (the army chief of staff), and Admiral Toyoda (the navy chief of staff). The three who wanted to end the war were the aging Admiral Suzuki (the prime minister), Togo (the foreign minister - not to be confused with the former prime minister Tojo), and Admiral Yonai (the Navy minister who took the pro-surrender position with great courage and at possible risk of his own life). The night before the emperor's surrender speech was to be broadcast to the nation, there was a violent attempt on the part of some mid-level officers (majors and lieutenant-colonels) to stage a coup and derail the surrender. They killed the general who was in command of the palace guard and ransacked the palace looking for the recording of the speech, which fortunately they did not find. Then another loyalist general, the commander of the eastern army, arrived and put down the revolt, and the rebels committed suicide. One of those two generals was Tanaka, but I can't remember if he was the one killed or the one who put down the revolt.
At that point, contrary to normal practice, the emperor intervened and the three holdouts capitulated to his wishes. The atomic bombs were apparently a strong factor in the emperor's decision.
Undoubtedly, the dropping of the atomic bombs was the major factor accounting for the willingness of the Japanese to finally surrender. Its my observation though that every nation tends to give just a little more credit to its own efforts than may actually be due.
At the Potsdam Conference in Germany following the capitulation of the Third Reich, Stalin and Truman had a conversation. There had been some discussion about the Soviet Union entering the war against the Japanese. Stalin told Truman at Potsdam that his armed forces would invade Manchuria and other provinces in Mainland China where there was still a very hefty Japanese army and presence. Stalin actually kept his word that time and his armed forces invaded China just about the time the atomic bombs were used.
In his surrender message, Emperor Hirohito referred to both "the use of a most cruel weapon" and to "the general trends in the world going against Japan". When he said the latter, he was clearly referring to the Soviet invasion of Manchuria.
Clearly, the atomic bombs did shorten the war with Japan--leading to both fewer American and Japanese casualties. However, the Soviet invasion of Manchuria was also a factor. In the tense environment that prevailed in Tokyo prior to the surrender the Soviet invasion certainly helped tip the balance.
At the time, nukes were simply considered Really Big Bombs, there wasn't the stigma later attached to their use. When you give your missions names like "Operation Gomorrah" (that was Hamburg), you've kinda made your intention clear, wouldn't you say?
Quote:
Originally Posted by thePR
That is why we didn't bomb Europe like we did Japan...twice.
Seeing as the bomb wasn't ready before the Germans had surrendered, using it would have been a bit of a waste as well as a dirty trick.
Last edited by Dane_in_LA; 11-20-2011 at 11:33 AM..
Reason: Gomorrah, not Armageddon. WTF was I thinking?
Yes, I see your point..Dresden was a population center, not a military site. And there was not the stigma of the " Bomb" that there is today. Times were different. Was there discussion at the time about using the Bomb on Berlin?
The atom bomb wasn't available until after Germany surrendered.
As a casual observer, I think the reason Japan was picked was because when a country drops bombs on Americans this is what may happen. The next question is why didn't this happen to Al Qeda, a militant military organization that bombed and killed 3000 Americans?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Without a doubt.
