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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
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 |