Hiroshima/Nagasaki vs conventional B-17 bombing

Since the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were about 10 kilotons and a B-17 had
a normal bomb load of about 3 tons and I have heard of a formation of 1300
B-17's on a bomb run that would equal around 4 kilotons (3 x 1300 = 3900)
would the devastation be the same as a small A-bomb? or is there some
lessening effect because of the spread of much smaller bombs?

"zxcv" wrote in message
...
Since the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were about 10 kilotons and a B-17
had
a normal bomb load of about 3 tons and I have heard of a formation of 1300
B-17's on a bomb run that would equal around 4 kilotons (3 x 1300 = 3900)
would the devastation be the same as a small A-bomb? or is there some
lessening effect because of the spread of much smaller bombs?

Yes.

"zxcv" wrote in message
...
Since the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were about 10 kilotons and a B-17
had
a normal bomb load of about 3 tons and I have heard of a formation of 1300
B-17's on a bomb run that would equal around 4 kilotons (3 x 1300 = 3900)
would the devastation be the same as a small A-bomb? or is there some
lessening effect because of the spread of much smaller bombs?



Take a look at the fire raid on Tokyo where a very large number
of B-29's killed MORE people than the Nagasaki or Hiroshima
raids.

Keith

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 01:23:21 -0500, "zxcv" wrote:

Since the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were about 10 kilotons and a B-17 had
a normal bomb load of about 3 tons and I have heard of a formation of 1300
B-17's on a bomb run that would equal around 4 kilotons (3 x 1300 = 3900)
would the devastation be the same as a small A-bomb? or is there some
lessening effect because of the spread of much smaller bombs?


Most figures I have seen would suggest a somewhat higher yield for Fat
Man and (especially) Little Boy.

Given the same yield, however, my guess is that the B-17s (or more
like, B-29s) would do much more damage with conventional weapons, but
that it would have to be distributed among several or many targets.
And none of those targets would be devastated as Hiroshima was.

There was indeed a "thousand-plane" raid over Japan on August 14-15
http://www.warbirdforum.com/lastraid.htm which actually involved about
800 B-29s. I think they struck four or five cities over a period of
more than 12 hours. (The limiting factor was the runways at Guam and
Tinian. For a time there, the early raiders were landing even as the
later ones were taking off.)


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

Keith Willshaw wrote:

"zxcv" wrote in message
...

Since the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were about 10 kilotons and a B-17

had

a normal bomb load of about 3 tons and I have heard of a formation of 1300
B-17's on a bomb run that would equal around 4 kilotons (3 x 1300 = 3900)
would the devastation be the same as a small A-bomb? or is there some
lessening effect because of the spread of much smaller bombs?

Take a look at the fire raid on Tokyo where a very large number
of B-29's killed MORE people than the Nagasaki or Hiroshima
raids.

Also note the appearance of Tokyo versus Hiroshima.

Not much different.


SMH

Cub Driver wrote:

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 01:23:21 -0500, "zxcv" wrote:

Since the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were about 10 kilotons and a B-17 had
a normal bomb load of about 3 tons and I have heard of a formation of 1300
B-17's on a bomb run that would equal around 4 kilotons (3 x 1300 = 3900)
would the devastation be the same as a small A-bomb? or is there some
lessening effect because of the spread of much smaller bombs?


Most figures I have seen would suggest a somewhat higher yield for Fat
Man and (especially) Little Boy.

You have that bass-ackwards, Dan. Little Boy is typically given a range of
13-15kt, Fat Man typically 21-23kt.

Guy

In article , says...

"zxcv" wrote in message
...
Since the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were about 10 kilotons and a B-17
had
a normal bomb load of about 3 tons and I have heard of a formation of 1300
B-17's on a bomb run that would equal around 4 kilotons (3 x 1300 = 3900)
would the devastation be the same as a small A-bomb? or is there some
lessening effect because of the spread of much smaller bombs?

Yes.




This cannot be right surely the effects of many small bombs over a wider
area are bigger then one big bomb in one region.



--
Morality is like fashion. It changes all the time.

Observations of Bernard - No 54

"zxcv" wrote in message ...
Since the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were about 10 kilotons and a B-17 had
a normal bomb load of about 3 tons and I have heard of a formation of 1300
B-17's on a bomb run that would equal around 4 kilotons (3 x 1300 = 3900)
would the devastation be the same as a small A-bomb? or is there some
lessening effect because of the spread of much smaller bombs?


Even in the worst cases of conventional bombing (like Tokyo), only 10%
of the affected population was killed.

In most of the Japanese cities firebombed, the death rate was about
1%.

The A-bombs killed about half of the people in the affected area both
times.

"hiroshima facts" wrote in message
m...
"zxcv" wrote in message
...
Since the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were about 10 kilotons and a B-17
had
a normal bomb load of about 3 tons and I have heard of a formation of
1300
B-17's on a bomb run that would equal around 4 kilotons (3 x 1300 =
3900)
would the devastation be the same as a small A-bomb? or is there some
lessening effect because of the spread of much smaller bombs?


Even in the worst cases of conventional bombing (like Tokyo), only 10%
of the affected population was killed.

In most of the Japanese cities firebombed, the death rate was about
1%.

The A-bombs killed about half of the people in the affected area both
times.

This is clearly incorrect , In 1946, the Manhattan Engineer District
published
a study that concluded that 66,000 people were killed at Hiroshima out of a
population of 255,000. Of that number, 45,000 died on the first day and
19,000
during the next four months.

Also in 1946, the Hiroshima police estimated the dead at 78,150 and the
missing
at 13,983, for a total of about 92,000 if all the missing are presumed dead
(a very unlikely hypothesis). So this estimate is not radically different
from
the American estimate.

In Nagasaki, out of a population of 174,000, 22,000 died on the
first day and another 17,000 within four months.

Keith

Even in the worst cases of conventional bombing (like Tokyo), only 10%
of the affected population was killed.

It would appear that somewhere between 25 and 30 percent of the
Hiroshima population was killed. www.warbirdforum.com/hirodead.htm
Comparing kiloton equivalents, it might well be that the Tokyo fire
raid was much more devastating.
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