On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:51:33 GMT, "weary" wrote:
I never claimed that every bomb would be on target,
Ohhh it attempts to move the goalposts.
but feel free to
construct strawmen,
Not a strawman, a fact, you were asked to provide the alternatives, you
havent.
they are fun to demolish and reveal the poverty of your argument.
Precision bombing in Japan at the time of the atomic bombs greatly exceeded
the average accuracy of the German theatre, where precision bombing
was used and obviously thought viable for pretty well the whole campaign.
Which of course is *meaningless* given the CEP needed to hit and destroy a
point target.
and averaged 35 to 40 percent within 1,000
feet of the aiming point in daylight attacks from 20,000 feet or lower. "
ROFLMAO!! You idiot, you still don't know what CEP means now do you.
The requirement that the target must be within an urban area
meant that civilian casualties would be maximised.
Which of course is another revisionist lie.
So in your fantasy world pointing out the obvious is "revisionism".
I don't think you know what it means.
It is revisionism to claim that B29s had the means to accurately deliver HE
on military targets in urban areas as an alternative to fire raids or the
atom bomb. Its pure unadulterated fantasia.
What is the effect of demanding that the 'target' be in an urban area
with regard to civilian casualties - are they minimised or maximised?
Why is the value of the 'target' somehow increased by being in a
large urban area?
I suggest you ask the targeting committee, the one which detailed
'military' targets as a clear contradiction of your idiotic line about
civilians.
I ask you like I've asked all the other revisionists. Tell us how *you*
would have targeted these facilities and these facilities using the
technology of the period.
Industrial plants had been targetted successfully by B-29s
virtually from the start of the bombing campaign against
the Japanese home islands.
Detail them. Tell us *exactly* what industrial plants had been targetted
successfully by B29s in mainland japan without causing any collateral
damage to the surrounding urban areas.
Nice attempt at a strawman - I didn't claim that such raids caused
no 'collateral' damage.
I asked you to tell us how *you* would have targeted the dozen or so key
targets in hiroshima using the technology of the period. Your reply was a
non sequitur.
"Industrial plants had been targetted successfully by B-29s
virtually from the start of the bombing campaign against
the Japanese home islands."
Given you've already told us that 60-70 % of bombs dropped will fall more
than 1000 feet from the target, even your limited comprehension skills
should be aware what 12 air raids by 3-500 B29s will do to a city, even if
they drop only HE.
You are obviously
short of facts if you have to resort to constructing strawmen.
You've been repeatedly asked for a meaningful alternative to the fire raids
or the A bomb and you haven't provided one.
Intellectual dishonesty noted. You will tell us the rest of what was
quoted
there now wont you.
If you think something was left out that changed the context feel free
to post it.
Yes, the source
http://www.usaaf.net/surveys/pto/pbs20.htm
and
"The Survey has estimated that the damage and casualties caused at
Hiroshima by the one atomic bomb dropped from a single plane would have
required 220 B-29s carrying 1,200 tons of incendiary bombs, 400 tons of
high-explosive bombs, and 500 tons of anti-personnel fragmentation bombs,
if conventional weapons, rather than an atomic bomb, had been used. One
hundred and twenty-five B-29s carrying 1,200 tons of bombs would have been
required to approximate the damage and casualties at Nagasaki. This
estimate pre-supposed bombing under conditions similar to those existing
when the atomic bombs were dropped and bombing accuracy equal to the
average attained by the Twentieth Air Force during the last 3 months of the
war. "
Which proves that the cities were not treated any differently to any other
B29 target in Japan.
You also neglected the detail the terminal effects on Nagasaki, something
to do with the PBS tearing another great hole in your drivel about the poor
ickle 'civilians'.
Which were assembled from components made in small backyard workshops up
and down the kanto plain,
Yeah right. They must have turned out hundreds of naval guns
and aero engines, the obvious choke points in production.
Awww bless another red herring. Tell us how japanese soldiers in the field
made use of all these 'hundreds of naval guns and aero engines' (sic).
You are aware that armies require more prosaic items, like vehicles, small
arms, uniforms, a wide variety of munitions including, bullets, grenades
and shells which were turned out by the millions across the kanto plain.
what part of mass production sub contracting are
you having problems comprehending.
I understand it quite well. I just don't believe
the bull**** you post about it.
You posted a strawman about naval guns. Ignoring the fact that naval gun
and aero engine production were a tiny fraction of japanese materiel
output.
Get a grip on reality.
I suggest you do.
Brilliant retort.
Yes, posting a non sequitur about backyard workshops producing naval cannon
clearly makes my point.
Ad hom - the last resort of those without an answer.
Given you havent told us how B29s with a documented (post war US SBS
survey) CEP of 1000 yards are going to accurately target industrial
operations in large urban areas in the face of hostile air defences. I
suggest you take the mote out of your own eye 1st clown.
The contents of the USSBS do that quite satisfactorily
They do that, they tell us that 60-70% of bombs dropped fell more than 1000
feet from the aim point. Something which meant that crews had to be put in
harms away again and again to destroy targets.
greg
--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.