Replies

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.

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.

There is no 'payback' for destroying an AA gun. Nothing to put on the + side of the ledger. Destroying the factory that makes them OTOH is a +. As for 'fighting civilians', dispering manufacuring through out the populated areas, wasn't our idea, it was the Japanese.

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.

Yet you espouse the same tactic of Douhet and transfer it to the military. It doesn't work on either. But it does salve your conscience. Armies moves, factories and cities don't. Only one class of these targets lended itself to the technology of the day. Your supposed real time intelligence and communications network, didn't exist at the time, and wouldn't for at least 40+ years.

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 ?

Not what I said. You posited 5000 dive bomber sorties daily. An impossibility. You want to fight the end of WWII with today's weapons and systems, when you have to fight it in a different way with what they had at the time. You have failed to do so. Your pie in the sky tactics and battle plan are twaddle. Both unrealistic in execution and impossible even in theory considering the resources available. You try and have the world shaped by the end of the war, instead of realizing that the beginning/middle of the war shaped the endstate. You want to act like the endstate was the norm and so fight based on the enemy capabilities at that point in time.

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 ?

That's just what the planners did, realizing that air power was NOT going to attrite the Japanese armed forces enough to validate the time and momentum lost by delaying the invasion. Might more Allied men die as a result of this decision in the short term, yeah, but less than would die in the long term. War is Politics, and politics and mercy demanded an end to the conflict. Prolonging it would sentence our POWs to death, cause more men to not come home, and continue the disruption of the world's economy.

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.

There would be no 'token' support. The full effects of the available weapons would be brought to bear. AFA body armor, the whole war was fought without it, another tech that wasn't possible or practical then. The hardened positions would be taken like they always had been up to that point, by hard men and valor. AFA 'frontal assaults' even then the Army and the Corps were about maneuver, if there is no room to maneuver, it doesn't mean we go home.

but it does make for a lot of propaganda movies about dead heroes.

Nothing misleading or biased about men under extreme conditions and duress performing valorously in battle. Sacrifice for ones brothers-in-arms is honorable, it isn't some cheap stunt like those on the Left perceive. Your method dishonors that commitment by condemning a segment of the armed forces to an idiotic pollyannaish perpetual battle with no strategic objectives solely for the purposes of your own morality or sensibilities.