If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
I dont think all the population of Tokyo were in the area affected by its bombing either Correct. Only about 1 million people. but the target at Hiroshima was the military HQ and there were at least 30,000 soldiers in the area. 43,000 Japanese soldiers (20,000 of which were killed by the bomb). I never saw figures for injuries, but I imagine a lot of the rest had some serious injuries. Actually the arms plant was the target. It was the target the pilot was aiming for because it was all he could see. But the target he was supposed to be hitting at Nagasaki was the Mitsubishi Shipyards. In neither case were half the population killed as you asserted Not half population of the cities. But half the population in the areas affected by the bombs. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message ...
So presumably the "affected area/population" is being defined as something less than the total city, only the districts damaged to a defined extent and affects on people again to a defined extent. Yes. Arthur Harris' acreage destroyed table says 75% of Hamburg and 59% of Dresden were destroyed during the war. The Tokyo fire storm raid destroyed nearly 16 square miles or nearly 25% of all buildings in the city, over 1,000,000 left homeless. The attack on Hiroshima killed around 80,000 and made a further 180,000 homeless, so 80/260 or 31% of the people affected, using homeless and killed as the definition of affected. As noted above Tokyo comes in at 7 to 8% using this measure. The figures behind the 10% claim presume 1 million affected and 100,000 killed. I tried to track down the 50% claim, and it apparently is based on "Medical Effects of the Atomic Bomb in Japan" published by Oughterson in 1956. I don't have that on hand, but I understand that on page 84, they say that 48% of people within 2 km of ground zero were killed. And "within 2 km of ground zero" was counted as the "affected area" for the estimate I was quoting. I agree with the rest: One problem with comparing the data is the non atomic attacks were against alerted cities, with people in shelters, the atomic strikes were against unalerted cities and it makes a big difference to the casualty figures. On 5 April 1943 the USAAF hit the Antwerp industrial area with 172 short tons of bombs, killing 936 civilians, it would appear the population assumed the bombers were going somewhere else. There are plenty of such examples from the air war in Europe, as late as April 1945 with the RAF attack on Potsdam, the population appears to have assumed an attack on Berlin, one estimate is perhaps 5,000 dead, the pre war population was 74,000, 1,962 short tons of bombs dropped. Given the difficulty in knowing the population numbers at the time of the attacks on axis cities it would be interesting to know how the estimates of populations in specific parts of the cities were done. I would expect a nuclear weapon to be more lethal to those in the target area, mainly the difference between most damage being inflicted almost instantaneously and fires breaking out rapidly versus the time it takes to put hundreds of bombers over the target. Geoffrey Sinclair Remove the nb for email. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"John Keeney" wrote in message ...
I think you are going to have to very carefully define what *you* mean by "the affected area". You apparently don't mean to include the entire cities of Hiroshima & Nagasaki. I would like to see your interpretation of "the affected area" as applied to Tokyo as well. I don't have all the methodology that went into the estimate, but I presume "affected area" refers to the areas that were leveled in the attack. The "affected area" for the nukes was counted as "within 2 km". |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Cub Driver wrote in message . ..
It would appear that somewhere between 25 and 30 percent of the Hiroshima population was killed. But how many of them were in the area affected by the bomb? But that, surely, is the whole point! The atomic bomb makes rubble bounce. The same or less kilotonnage spread over a wide area might well do much more damage. To structures, perhaps. But even if we use the lower mortality figures of 7-8% for Tokyo, and 31% for the nukes, there are still a lot more killed within the affected area with nukes. To put it another way, compare the number killed with one of the A-bombs with the number killed in Tokyo. Then compare the area destroyed and the population density of that area. It is true that "people not taking cover from the nukes" is going to skew this some, but I expect that there would still be a considerable difference even if that was taken into account. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"hiroshima facts" wrote in message om... "Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ... I dont think all the population of Tokyo were in the area affected by its bombing either Correct. Only about 1 million people. Cite please, a million people were left homeless but the main damage mechanism in Tokyo as at Dresden, Hamburg and Hiroshima was the firestorm that developed. There was no firestorm in the case of Nagasaki. but the target at Hiroshima was the military HQ and there were at least 30,000 soldiers in the area. 43,000 Japanese soldiers (20,000 of which were killed by the bomb). I never saw figures for injuries, but I imagine a lot of the rest had some serious injuries. Actually the arms plant was the target. It was the target the pilot was aiming for because it was all he could see. But the target he was supposed to be hitting at Nagasaki was the Mitsubishi Shipyards. Not according to the crew who dropped it Quote We started an approach [to Nagasaki]," Olivi said, "but Beahan couldn't see the target area [in the city east of the harbor]. Van Pelt, the navigator, was checking by radar to make sure we had the right city, and it looked like we would be dropping the bomb automatically by radar. At the last few seconds of the bomb run, Beahan yelled into his mike, 'I've got a hole! I can see it! I can see the target!' Apparently, he had spotted an opening in the clouds only 20 seconds before releasing the bomb." In his debriefing later, Beahan told Tibbets, "I saw my aiming point; there was no problem about it. I got the cross hairs on it; I'd killed my rate; I'd killed my drift. The bomb had to go." /Quote In neither case were half the population killed as you asserted Not half population of the cities. But half the population in the areas affected by the bombs. Incorrect, 67% of the buildings in Hiroshima were destroyed or severely damaged. This means at least 2/3rds of the city was affected by the bomb In the case of Nagasaki 40% of the cities buildings were either totally or partly destroyed. source The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by The Manhattan Engineer District, June 29, 1946 Keith |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"hiroshima facts" wrote in message om... I tried to track down the 50% claim, and it apparently is based on "Medical Effects of the Atomic Bomb in Japan" published by Oughterson in 1956. I don't have that on hand, but I understand that on page 84, they say that 48% of people within 2 km of ground zero were killed. And "within 2 km of ground zero" was counted as the "affected area" for the estimate I was quoting. This is an oversimplification According to the Manhattan Engineer district survey the relationship of mortality to range was as follows Distance in feet Per-cent Mortality 0 - 1000 93.0% 1000 - 2000 92.0 2000 - 3000 86.0 3000 - 4000 69.0 4000 - 5000 49.0 5000 - 6000 31.5 6000 - 7000 12.5 7000 - 8000 1.3 8000 - 9000 0.5 9000 - 10,000 0.0 The same source states "Nearly everything was heavily damaged up to a radius of 3 miles from the blast and beyond this distance damage, although comparatively light, extended for several more miles." Clearly the area affected was much more than that within a radius of 2 kms Keith |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
hiroshima facts wrote in message . ..
"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message ... So presumably the "affected area/population" is being defined as something less than the total city, only the districts damaged to a defined extent and affects on people again to a defined extent. Yes. Which makes the figures very vulnerable to arbitrary definitions. Arthur Harris' acreage destroyed table says 75% of Hamburg and 59% of Dresden were destroyed during the war. The Tokyo fire storm raid destroyed nearly 16 square miles or nearly 25% of all buildings in the city, over 1,000,000 left homeless. The attack on Hiroshima killed around 80,000 and made a further 180,000 homeless, so 80/260 or 31% of the people affected, using homeless and killed as the definition of affected. As noted above Tokyo comes in at 7 to 8% using this measure. The figures behind the 10% claim presume 1 million affected and 100,000 killed. (10% for Tokyo) Yet those figures should then read 9%, 100,000 dead out of 1,100,000 dead and homeless, since the two categories are mutually exclusive. I tried to track down the 50% claim, and it apparently is based on "Medical Effects of the Atomic Bomb in Japan" published by Oughterson in 1956. I don't have that on hand, but I understand that on page 84, they say that 48% of people within 2 km of ground zero were killed. And "within 2 km of ground zero" was counted as the "affected area" for the estimate I was quoting. In which case the affected area being defined as significantly less than the area of blast and fire damage. There were deaths and damage beyond the 2 km/6,600 feet radius. It is also different to the measure used for Tokyo, since it does not use dead plus homeless, substituting a 2 km circle instead. It makes the atomic attacks look more lethal by changing the choice of measurement. The comparison between the two as reported is therefore invalid. The Tokyo raid destroyed 16 square miles, which is the area of a circle of around 2.25 miles or 3.6 km in radius, what was the death toll like for the 2 km circle? On a comparative scale Tokyo comes in at 7 to 8%, Hiroshima 31% deaths when you count the dead and homeless as the "affected population", making the atomic strikes about 4 times as lethal. Though this ignores the reality Hiroshima was not under air raid alert at the time but Tokyo was, which could account for much to even all of the difference in lethality. It looks like the bombing campaign against Germany killed around 1 person per 4,600 pounds of bombs dropped, using the pre war German borders definition of Germany. The strike on Antwerp I mentioned killed at a rate much higher than that. Now it could be the reason this strike made it to the history books was because it was an extreme example of lethality, but it does show how variable the results could be. In the bombing campaign against French targets the civilian death toll was around 1 death per 20,000 pounds of bombs. In theory, assuming Little Boy had a 15,000 ton effectiveness, Hiroshima works out to 1 death per 375 "pounds", the Antwerp raid 1 death per 360 pounds. Fat Man at 23,000 tons yield works out to around 1 death per 1,300 "pounds". The RAF Hamburg firestorm raid dropped 2,707 short tons of bombs, some of which missed, but killed around 40,000 people, that is around 1 death per 135 pounds of bombs. Many of the deaths were to lack of oxygen/carbon monoxide in the shelters which had not been set up to handle such bad fires. Back to Tokyo, Put it another way, the Tokyo Police report has 1 injured for every 2 dead, assume the same ratio applies to housing and you have over 1,000,000 homeless and over another 500,000 whose house was damaged, they would be "affected" as well. That means the dead as a percentage of affected goes to 84,000 out of 1,600,000, back down to the 5% range of the European fire storms. Or again Tokyo had nearly 25% of buildings destroyed, again assume a 2 to 1 ratio destroyed to damaged, and we have over 1/3 of the city affected, which would mean, in theory 2,000,000 people. So the percentage drops to 4%. Just choose the definitions and drop out the numbers. This ignores the problems in determining a good population figure for the city, let alone a subset of districts, given the attacks by definition would destroy some of the records needed to determine the population present. Geoffrey Sinclair Remove the nb for email. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
On 22 Mar 2004 06:54:55 -0800, (hiroshima
facts) wrote: To put it another way, compare the number killed with one of the A-bombs with the number killed in Tokyo. Then compare the area destroyed and the population density of that area. No. Compare the kilotonnage per fatality. all the best -- Dan Ford email: (requires authentication) see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message ...
hiroshima facts wrote in message . .. I tried to track down the 50% claim, and it apparently is based on "Medical Effects of the Atomic Bomb in Japan" published by Oughterson in 1956. I don't have that on hand, but I understand that on page 84, they say that 48% of people within 2 km of ground zero were killed. And "within 2 km of ground zero" was counted as the "affected area" for the estimate I was quoting. In which case the affected area being defined as significantly less than the area of blast and fire damage. There were deaths and damage beyond the 2 km/6,600 feet radius. I'm guessing the estimate tried to pick the area where most of the buildings were leveled, and came up with 2 KM. Since a modern nuclear attack that wanted to level a city would use either large enough warheads (or a large enough numbers of warheads) to level everything, this seems fair to me, although perhaps I should use a more precise term than "area affected". It is also different to the measure used for Tokyo, since it does not use dead plus homeless, substituting a 2 km circle instead. It makes the atomic attacks look more lethal by changing the choice of measurement. The comparison between the two as reported is therefore invalid. The Tokyo raid destroyed 16 square miles, which is the area of a circle of around 2.25 miles or 3.6 km in radius, what was the death toll like for the 2 km circle? As far as I know, there was no concentration of deaths in the Tokyo raid that would change the ratio if we focused on a smaller area. On a comparative scale Tokyo comes in at 7 to 8%, Hiroshima 31% deaths when you count the dead and homeless as the "affected population", making the atomic strikes about 4 times as lethal. Though this ignores the reality Hiroshima was not under air raid alert at the time but Tokyo was, which could account for much to even all of the difference in lethality. I don't think it could account for all of it. Are there *any* instances of conventional weapons ever killing more than 8% (either of the "area affected" or the "area leveled")? |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Cub Driver wrote in message . ..
On 22 Mar 2004 06:54:55 -0800, (hiroshima facts) wrote: To put it another way, compare the number killed with one of the A-bombs with the number killed in Tokyo. Then compare the area destroyed and the population density of that area. No. Compare the kilotonnage per fatality. Nuclear weapons may well be more costly that way, but you get what you pay for. I don't think there are any instances of conventional weapons killing more than 10% of people in the affected area, and arguments here point to even less than 10%, even for the most deadly use of conventional weapons. However, I have not seen any arguments that have credited the A-bombs with fewer than 30% fatalities in the area affected. By using more explosive per person killed, you also kill a greater portion of the people in the area you are bombing. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How accurate was B-26 bombing? | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 59 | March 3rd 04 10:10 PM |
Area bombing is not a dirty word. | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 82 | February 11th 04 02:10 PM |
WW2 bombing | Bernardz | Military Aviation | 10 | January 14th 04 01:07 PM |
WarPac War Plans-any conventional? | Matt Wiser | Military Aviation | 1 | December 8th 03 09:29 PM |
Looking for Info. on Vietnam Bombing | Seraphim | Military Aviation | 0 | October 19th 03 01:52 AM |