P
Pro_Domina
Guest
Did you know that the two cities bombed where the most Catholic ones?
And then they say evil just happens…
And then they say evil just happens…
- Status
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
Read the book “First Into Nagasaki” for specific and detailed information.
amazon.com/First-Into-Nagasaki-Eyewitness-Post-Atomic/dp/0307342018
The book is a memoir composed of newspaper articles written in September 1945 but censored at the time and that had vanished until the author’s son was cleaning out his father’s house after his death and discovered long-forgotten carbon copies.
Because the articles were written through the eyes of a newspaper reporter, they cover everything the author saw and heard.
However, the first chapter describes the target of Nagasaki and on page 31 the author speculates whether a hospital could have been spared or a mission college or the neighborhood of Catholic and Christian Japanese.
And then he writes, "But sparing these and sparing the Allied prison camp [very few prisoners died in the bombing] which the Japanese placed next to an armor plate factory, would have meant sparing Mitubishi’s ship parts plant … , an ammunition facotry,… three steel foundries, and … many subcontracting plants … Mitsubishi’s torpedo and ammunition plant … "
The author explains that Nagasaki had a large natural harbor and was the shipping point for military supplies. The piers and the ships in port were destroyed.
The author observes that the railroads were put back into service almost immediately after the bombing, long before the first American troops arrived.
G
GKC
Guest
Nagasaki was the port of embarkation and supply for Kyushu, the first home island slated to be invaded under DOWNFALL.
GKC
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
I was looking around and found an article published in the May 5, 2008 issue of the Grants Pass (Oregon) “Daily Courier” . It featured an interview with a local fellow named Jack Hennessy. He was a crew member on a recon version of the B-36 that carried a full size reconnaissance plane tucked up into the bomb bay on a special device (“trapeze”) that was used to lower and retrieve the plane … an RF-84F … “Thunderflash”. They called it the GRB-36F FICON.
home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b36_17.html
The fellow said one of the recon pilots was Francis Gary Powers.
Interesting, no?
The article was lost in the ether and the back numbers of the newspaper are only available to paid subscribers of which I’m not one of. I only have the front page of that paper and the article is on page 6A.
G
GKC
Guest
Another oddity was a parasite fighter designed to hang on a similar trapeze on the B-36, the XF-85 Goblin. There’s one at the museum at Wright-Patterson AFB. Cute little thing, totally impractical.
GKC
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
That XF-85 was originally tested with a B-29 or a B-50. It had a very small wing span so that it could be fully retracted into the bomb bay. But that narrow wing span gave it very little roll control and poor stability.
The guts and bravery and courage that the pilots displayed with airplanes that were connected up is incredible.
But there was still tremendous interest in providing bombers with some sort of defensive protection. Guns had severe range limitations and turrets had trouble turning fast enough to track fast-moving fighters … which is one of the many reasons why B-29’s got creamed during the Korean War.
[There was also the fact that we were limited to .50 caliber machine guns and it generally took a lot of hits to do significant damage to an airplane, whereas the Germans and Russians/Soviets used 20mm and 37mm cannon with high explosive loads … one hit could bring down a bomber, whereas the .50 caliber required many many hits.]
[Only a few bombers used 20 mm cannon … the B-47 and some of the B-52 tail guns for example. I think the B-29 had a 20mm in the tail, but not in the turrets. The B-36 used 20mm cannon in the turrets. Which is &*)%$ amazing! I think they weighed eight tons in total.]
Back in the 1930’s ?] airships had a hangar and carried airplanes internally.
So, a lot of schemes were devised to bring fighters along … there was one whereby fighters would hook up to the wing tips of bombers and ride along. There was a problem with the misunderstood tip vortices and after one of the fighters rolled over and collided with the B-29 bomber being used for the test, so that scheme went away.
There was another plan to use a tanker plane to tow a fighter using the tanker’s boom locked on to the fighter. Don’t know how far they got with that, although one guy in an F-105 that got shot full of holes was towed home in combat by a KC-135. Don’t know if the tanker boom was actually locked on or if the fighter pilot just kept flying in “close formation”.
But the idea of an F-84 fighter connected to a mother plane with a trapeze under the fuselage persisted and resulted in the FICON. It must have been somewhat useful because it went beyond the experimental stage and somewhere around 20 or so were actually converted and put into service.
There are a lot of these “anomalies” that actually went into service. The need wasn’t large, so only a small number of these “anomalous systems” were put into service.
Not uncommon for only a dozen or so specialty types getting produced or modified.
Such as the RB-57F.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
Here’s an interesting You-Tube of the XF-85 Goblin connecting up with a stunning “oops”!
The carrier mother plane was a B-29 … the type used to drop the atomic bomb in WW2.
youtube.com/watch?v=PisUjsXSUZU
The carrier mother plane was a B-29 … the type used to drop the atomic bomb in WW2.
youtube.com/watch?v=PisUjsXSUZU
G
GKC
Guest
And the XF-85 had very limited range, and and the concept of taking one fighter with you as protection was not that viable given what the enemy could put up.
AFAIK, the B-29s used twin .50s in the tails.
And yes, in the 30s, some Navy dirigibles sported a similar trapeze, and carried a number of Sparrowhawks (IIRC. I collect books on lighter than air craft, but all are in storage), taking advantage of the cavernous interior of the airships. Macon or Savannah, I think, but I’m not going to look it up, even googling.
Don’t confuse utility with attempted development and production. It often happened (and happens) that some one gets locked into some sort of concept and pushes it therough, regardless. I spent most of my career in the weapon development, acquisition and test and evaluation world. Some odd stuff came along.
The basic Canberra airframe was an interesting anomoly for another reason, it being the last time (again, IIRC) that we bought the rights to produce a foreign aircraft design. Until the next tanker model, maybe. But I’m bettig Boeing’s challenge to the decision to go with a foreign airframe will be successful.
GKC
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
Up until recently, the “doctrine” for bomber missions was mass flights … even the B-52’s used over North Vietnam. So, it was sort of “logical” that when fleets of bombers were to be used in future conflicts, some of them might carry those little “escort” /parasite fighters … just as some of the bombers would be dedicated jammers, dedicated pathfinders, etc.
The Brits came up with some interesting airplane designs … TSR2 is one that got the chop (prematurely, in my mind).
They came up with two models of the V/STOL Kestrel design. (From memory) … the P1127 ?} which was subsonic and led to the AV-8 Harrier and the supersonic P1157 ?]
There was also a very advanced supersonic airplane by A.V. Roe, but it also got cancelled.
The other day, I was surfing around and found that the Meteor, which was a WW2 jet fighter had a “top secret” recon development that may have flown as high as 100,000 feet and was only recently retired.
My retired USAF friends were shocked, SHOCKED when I sent them the link. I will see if I can find it and post it here.
avhub.net/MI_u2meteorpr19incirlik.htm
Interesting stuff that went on during WW2 R&D.
G
GKC
Guest
Yes. I know. The B-52 was one of the planes I worked on. D, G and H models, mainly.
But even a bomber stream (and in a nuc war, there won’t be one. Fratracide), a fighter of teh Goblin variety per palne would be swamped by the defending air fleets. It was a no-go.
Yep, as to WWII R&D. As you know WWII is a hobby, and the R&D field, as my own former baliwick, attracts me.
GKC
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
You’re right about the impracticality of the parasite / escort fighter idea.
It was one of those concepts that kind of got caught in between the lessons of WW2 and the warfighting culture that came out of WW2 and the reconciliation with the rapidly evolving post-war technology. Not sure, but I think the F-101 was supposed to be an escort fighter … but was modified to the RF-101 recon mission and also to air-to-air intercept mission.
Anyway, I found this possibly photoshopped picture of the USAF B-52 aerobatic team!!
flickr.com/photos/tom-margie/2823393177/
For a while, they got interested in doing aerobatics with larger planes … I knew about the C-130 aerobatic team, but had not been aware of the B-52 aerobatic/ discussions.
*
G
GKC
Guest
You’re right about the impracticality of the parasite / escort fighter idea.
It was one of those concepts that kind of got caught in between the lessons of WW2 and the warfighting culture that came out of WW2 and the reconciliation with the rapidly evolving post-war technology. Not sure, but I think the F-101 was supposed to be an escort fighter … but was modified to the RF-101 recon mission and also to air-to-air intercept mission.
Anyway, I found this possibly photoshopped picture of the USAF B-52 aerobatic team!!
flickr.com/photos/tom-margie/2823393177/*
For a while, they got interested in doing aerobatics with larger planes … I knew about the C-130 aerobatic team, but had not been aware of the B-52 aerobatic/ discussions.
IIRC the F-101 was a continental air defense fighter from the start.
Had relatives who piloted the Buff… But not acrobatically.
OTOH, I did work with a B-52D pilot whose tail gunner got a Mig over NV. Rare thing.
GKC
W
Walt_Oliver
Guest
You guys need to start a thread in the Back Fence for the airplane discussion and get back to discussing the morality of using the A-bomb in WWII in this one.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
Getting back on track, I’ve been reading “Retribution: The Battle for Japan, 1944 -45” by Max Hastings.
I found it at the library … but after less than 100 pages, I found I had 20 or 30 little yellow stickies attached to various pages.
So, I went to Amazon and ordered a copy so I can transfer the stickies and retain those references.
amazon.com/Retribution-Battle-1944-45-Max-Hastings/dp/0307263517
However, Hastings doesn’t begin the book with 1944. He goes back to before the attack on Pearl Harbor and goes up into Manchuria and Korea. He discusses all of the psychological and cultural (and political) motivations that impelled the Japanese to never surrender … to fight to the death … how they had been acculturated to meager diets and fighting with minimal equipment.
I may post some quotes from the book that reinforce the decision of the Americans to use the atomic bomb.
But before I do that I want to encourage anyone interested in this topic to get this book, “Retribution” by Max Hastings. Start with a library copy and if you find yourself inserting little yellow stickies every few pages, then consider buying a copy for your reference shelf if you’re serious about this sort of topic.
This is an essential book.
I found it at the library … but after less than 100 pages, I found I had 20 or 30 little yellow stickies attached to various pages.
So, I went to Amazon and ordered a copy so I can transfer the stickies and retain those references.
amazon.com/Retribution-Battle-1944-45-Max-Hastings/dp/0307263517
However, Hastings doesn’t begin the book with 1944. He goes back to before the attack on Pearl Harbor and goes up into Manchuria and Korea. He discusses all of the psychological and cultural (and political) motivations that impelled the Japanese to never surrender … to fight to the death … how they had been acculturated to meager diets and fighting with minimal equipment.
I may post some quotes from the book that reinforce the decision of the Americans to use the atomic bomb.
But before I do that I want to encourage anyone interested in this topic to get this book, “Retribution” by Max Hastings. Start with a library copy and if you find yourself inserting little yellow stickies every few pages, then consider buying a copy for your reference shelf if you’re serious about this sort of topic.
This is an essential book.
C
Claudius
Guest
Let’s think about it. It was wrong.
Dropping the bomb was wrong and the U.S. invading Japan would have been wrong too. The war would have ended without either and we could have had peace with Japan a lot sooner actually.
But no, Rosovelt wanted to kill as many people as he could. Well, that is the protestant line for you.
What are the results of the Bomb being dropped?
Communist North Korea and China. Taiwan no longer recognized. Beijing Olympics. Millions of Catholics in China being killed every day with no one to stop it. Japan not able to defend herself so American troops have to hang out on the Islands and rape women. Japanese citizens being abducted to N.Korea to be experimented on.
Clearly, dropping the Bomb as a bad move and the Church should have condemned it.
B
bobzills
Guest
Yes, I believe that you are absolutely right and it was wrong and immoral to drop the A-Bomb on civilians in Japan. And it set a bad precedent. If it was OK for the USA to drop the bomb and kill civilians, why would it not be OK for another country in the future?
According to my understanding of the Catholic just war teaching, the use of the A-Bomb on cities in immoral since it will unavoidably result in the killing of thousands of civilians. It is simply wrong to use the A-Bomb on civilians to pressure a government to unconditional surrender. If this is not a form of terrorism, then I would be interested to know what is terrorisim actually?
G
GKC
Guest
I was less impressed, though I haven’t started reading it yet. At the price (what was it -$35?) I am waiting for the trade paperback. But I will get it. I get everything I see on the subject.
Meanwhile, my recommendation remains: Richard Frank’s DOWNFALL. And, for backup, Newman’s TRUMAN AND THE HIROSHIMA CULT.
But please do post from Hastings. I liked his book on the Falklands War and don’t mean to denigrate this one. Just the price tag.
GKC
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
Most probably the United States would NOT have invaded Japan. Because we knew from communications monitoring that the Japanese army had figured out where we would have landed and had massed hundreds of thousands of troops at those landing beaches.
So we would have just waited.
Meanwhile, as Hasting points out in “Retribution”, Japanese average caloric intake was less than 2000 calories per day. [He goes into some detail.]
In fact, even BEFORE the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in December 1941, average Japanese caloric intake was extremely low and it got worse as the war moved on.
So … without the atomic bomb and without the landings, the Japanese people would have simply starved to death. Most probably with diminished caloric intake, the deaths from infection and from cold-induced illness over the winter of 1945 - 46 would have been catastrophic.
As soon as the war in Europe ended, the Soviet Union shipped millions of troops east to confront the Japanese army in Manchuria and China. They swooped into Korea. And they captured some of the Japanese home islands (which they occupy to this day).
Hastings points out that the internal politics of Japan were such that there was already a substantial Communist presence within Japan.
So, there is a body of thought that, without the atomic bomb and without the landings, the Communists might have taken over all of Korea (as well as China) and Japan, as well.
Read the Hastings book. It’s extremely detailed and he covers an encyclopedic set of aspects of the Japanese war mentality and how it affected the conduct of the war by all parties.
It may not be reasonable to condemn the use of the atomic bomb out of hand, any more than any other war tactic is condemned. The consequences of not using certain tactics may be losing the war … and losing a war is not an academic exercise. Losing a war traditionally means losing your whole population.
All the details need to be looked at, rather than expressing a purely reflexive response.
G
geezerbob
Guest
The US has been involved only in limited wars during the lifetimes of most posters here, so I’ll ask once again how, in an all out war, do you separate civilian from military? Growing food for the troops, making arms and ammo for them, building trucks and tanks, all seem to me to make all engaged in such activities legitimate military targets, conventional or nuclear. Germany had plans to bomb NYC, Japan launched thousands of bombs by balloon into the jet stream to destroy the US, yet we are condemned when we do the same to them. Not that two wrongs make a right (three lefts do, though), but there seems to be no understanding of the hardships and deprivation suffered by the populace of all countries involved in WWII, including the US, and the desparate measures that desparate people fighting for their survival as a nation were willing to take. I would truly like some of the arm chair generals here to comment on this.
G
GKC
Guest
Re: the caloric level, and the Communist activities (which during the war were heavily surpressed), try EMBRACING DEFEAT/Dunn, too.
There’s so much out there.
For all that we knew of the build up on Kyushu, by late Nov, and that they had correctly spotted the two major landing areas (not that hard to do), we likely would have invaded. And used the nuclear weapons (around 8-9 was Groves estimate by the end of 1945) as tactical support. I can’t imagine a worse scenario.
GKC
- Status