"weary" wrote:

"Matt Wiser" wrote
in message
news:3ff88f17$1@bg2....

"weary" wrote:

"Matt Wiser" wrote
in message
news:3ff06fa6$1@bg2....

"weary" wrote:

snip

Weary, I said it before and I'll say
it
again: How would you have
destroyed
the miltiary and industrial targets located
in Japanese Cities?

Conventional bombing.

If not the B-29 fire raids, what? Daylight
precision bombing had poor
results over
Japan due to winds (Jet Stream) and opposition
from flak and fighters.

Where do get this nonsense from? The Strategic
Bombing Survey states -
"Bombing altitudes after 9 March 1945 were
lower,
in both day and night
attacks. Japanese opposition was not effective
even at the lower altitudes,
and the percentage of losses to enemy action
declined as the number of
attacking planes increased. Bomb loads increased
and operating losses
declined in part due to less strain on engines
at lower altitudes. Bombing
accuracy increased substantially, and averaged
35 to 40 percent within 1,000
feet of the aiming point in daylight attacks
from 20,000 feet or lower."








From the USAF official history of the 20th
and 21st Bomber Commands.

Strange that the USSBS contradicts them. The
figures it cites speak for
themselves.

And
remember: General Hayward Hansell, the first
CO of the B-29s on the
Marianas,
was fired for poor performance of his command
and replaced with LeMay by
Hap Arnold.

Why would I want to remember that? How is it
relevant?

You still think that accurate conventional
bombing was possible
given Japan's cottage industry.

I never claimed it was possible against cottage
industry - please
stop constructing strawmen.

It wasn't. Only way to destroy said major

How can cottage industry be a major industrial
target?

and minor industrial targets was to go low-level
at night with
incindinaries.

It worked. I don't care what the Japanese
think: THEY STARTED THE WAR, AND
THEY HAVE ONLY THEMSELVES TO BLAME FOR THE
CONSEQUENCES. Pearl Harbor's
treachery
was repaid with interest at Hiroshima.

Pearl Harbour didn't happen in a vacuum, in
spite of what you seem
to think. The Japanese didn't get up one morning
and decide to
attack Pearl Harbour because they had nothing
else to do.

Yamamoto was right: "All we have done is awaken
a sleeping giant and fill
him with a terrible resolve." He didn't live
to see it, but he was right.
I had relatives who were either in the Pacific
or headed there from
Europe.
To them, Truman made the right decision: drop
the bomb and end the war
ASAP.
No bomb means invasion, and look at Saipan,
Luzon, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa
to see what that would've been like. I like
to think that I'm here because
my grandfather didn't go to Kyushu in Nov
'45.

Oh God spare me the grandfather story yet again.


Did you have a relative either in the Pacific or en route to the Pacific
in Spring-Summer of '45? If you did, then you know where I'm coming from.
If not, then you'll never understand. How many Americans, British, and Japanese
lived because the bombs were dropped and OLYMPIC and CORONET were made unnecessary.
Besides, when you quote USSBS, that's postwar assessment, with info unavailable
to Truman and his advisers in June-July of '45 as they were deciding whether
to invade, continue the conventional bombing and blockade, or drop the bomb.
Easy to criticise with 50+ years of hindsight. And you still haven't answered
the question: What would YOU have done with the info Truman had on his desk
in June and July of '45? Not any postwar info, but what he had at the time.
And diplomacy is not an option as previously mentioned: it's not politically
possible either at home (He's committed to Unconditional Surrender as FDR's
legacy) or with the Allies (FDR made that policy at Casablanca in '43, and
reaffirmed it at each Summit since). You know the military options. They
are the only feasible options. Take your pick.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!