Hiroshima/Nagasaki vs conventional B-17 bombing

"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.

Nope. You need to change your nickname from "Hiroshima Facts" to "Hiroshima
Fantasies". Had half the population of Hiroshima died then the death toll
there would have been well over 100K, which is plainly not the case.

Brooks

Bernardz wrote:

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.

I would think so too because of the "overkill" in close proximity
to the blast. Not much use (war-wise) to pulverize an area near
the blast while missing an area far away, which, if you had
'spread out' the blast you'd have affected..
--

-Gord.

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"hiroshima facts" wrote in message
m...

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.

I don't think all 255,000 people were in the area affected by the
A-bomb, though.




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

In the case of Nagasaki, I know all 174,000 were not in the affected
area, since the pilot could only get sight of the arms-production
complexes on the outskirts of the city and so dropped the bomb there
on the outskirts.

Cub Driver wrote in message . ..
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.


But how many of them were in the area affected by the bomb?

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ...

Nope. You need to change your nickname from "Hiroshima Facts" to "Hiroshima
Fantasies".

This was a poor substitute for an intelligent argument.



Had half the population of Hiroshima died then the death toll
there would have been well over 100K, which is plainly not the case.

"Half the affected area" and "half the population of the city" are not
necessarily the same thing.

hiroshima facts wrote in message

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

Pre war population of Tokyo around 5,900,000, the firestorm raid
killed 83,783 according to Tokyo police, 1.4%, other estimates have
higher numbers of deaths and a smaller population due to evacuations.
Hamburg and Dresden suffered losses in the 4 to 5% range in the
firestorm raids, as a percentage of total population. Depending on
what population figures for the people present is accepted.

If the homeless figure plus deaths is the "population affected" figure
then the Tokyo death rate was around 7 to 8% of population affected.

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

This is presumably a percentage of total population present.


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

Pre war combined population of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was
around 520,000

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.
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.

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.

"hiroshima facts" wrote in message
om...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

Nope. You need to change your nickname from "Hiroshima Facts" to
"Hiroshima
Fantasies".

This was a poor substitute for an intelligent argument.



Had half the population of Hiroshima died then the death toll
there would have been well over 100K, which is plainly not the case.

"Half the affected area" and "half the population of the city" are not
necessarily the same thing.

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.

"hiroshima facts" wrote in message
om...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
"hiroshima facts" wrote in message
m...

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.

I don't think all 255,000 people were in the area affected by the
A-bomb, though.


I dont think all the population of Tokyo were in the area
affected by its bombing either but the target at Hiroshima
was the military HQ and there were at least 30,000 soldiers
in the area.




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

In the case of Nagasaki, I know all 174,000 were not in the affected
area, since the pilot could only get sight of the arms-production
complexes on the outskirts of the city and so dropped the bomb there
on the outskirts.

Actually the arms plant was the target.

In neither case were half the population killed as you asserted

Keith

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.

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

I don't think all 255,000 people were in the area affected by the
A-bomb, though.

As posted elsewhe this is the whole point! The nuclear blast wastes
most of its power killing the same people over and over again.

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