[xone]

B-29s limited their losses over Japan by their use of tactics, high altitude and night bombing. At altitude few Jap fighters could reach it and catch it as it was faster than the bombers in use in Europe. The losses reflected a campaign that only lasted ten months.

At any rate, high altitude bombing didn't get the job done. LeMay had the go low to get effects. I don't doubt that the two weeks before the bomb were easy on the B-29 crews, the Japs were shepherding their resources for the invasion they knew was coming.

On another note, combat losses were dwarfed by training losses and non-combat losses overseas. So while the thought of 5000 dive bombers a day sounds good, it isn't remotely feasible given the resources available. With no intel, there wouldn't be any targets.

It was invasion or the bomb, anything else is a pipe dream. Again, how many flyers or other military personnel would you sacrifice to avoid using the bomb?

[PieterCasparzen]

B-29s limited their losses over Japan by their use of tactics, high altitude and night bombing. At altitude few Jap fighters could reach it and catch it as it was faster than the bombers in use in Europe. The losses reflected a campaign that only lasted ten months.

We kept seeing resistance from their air force and AA because we did not destroy them FIRST.

We allowed them runways, hangars, aircraft maintenance and supply, aircraft fuel, munitions, command and control. And so their air forces continued to operate.

Meanwhile, we carpted bombed from above their reach.

We chose to fight civilians instead of fighting military targets that were actually the main threat faced by our air force.

The idiotic "bomb their cities into submission" idea kept being floated around. When in reality - duh - the military will keep fighting if you bomb civilian targets and leave the military alone to fight. This is how wars drag out and civilian casualties increase dramatically. You know, when you spend most of your military effort attacking civilians and not so much attacking military targets.

But, if Secretary Stimson just relays the commands of the Rockefeller regime, and that's the sick war that they want, then that's what we do, destroy as much of the population and buildings of the enemy as possible.

On another note, combat losses were dwarfed by training losses and non-combat losses overseas. So while the thought of 5000 dive bombers a day sounds good, it isn't remotely feasible given the resources available. With no intel, there wouldn't be any targets.

That makes no sense at all - we had to carpet bomb civilians because we would have had too many training losses if we tried to field a force that actually attacked military targets ?

It was invasion or the bomb, anything else is a pipe dream. Again, how many flyers or other military personnel would you sacrifice to avoid using the bomb?

No, it could be neither. I'm not willing to sacrifice any unnecessarily. Why would you conduct an invasion without first conducting an air war to gain air supremecy and then destroy as much of the opposing ground force as possible beforehand ?

If there was no atomic bomb available, how many would you be willing to slaughter by sending them charging into hardened positions with only token support and practially no body armor ? IMHO, frontal assault into overlapping fields of fire with practically no cover or armor is nuts, but it does make for a lot of propaganda movies about dead heroes.