PDA

View Full Version : Hartmann, four kills with 112 rounds.......



Jumoschwanz
05-07-2005, 10:02 PM
I lent my "Blond Knight of Germany" to someone so it is not right here to quote. But it is a fact that on one sortie Hartmann shot down four Russian planes, and a while after landing his armorer came to him and told him he had used only 112 rounds.

So I guess he was a good shot, and apparently those German cannons did have quite a kick. I am almost sure that at least a few of those he shot down in this instance were IL2 Sturmoviks, which makes it really impressive huh?

Often when flying online either on coms or chat I will see the 109s refered to as one hit wonders in a derogatory way. Well in light of the above they must have been as close to it as any plane out there in WWII.

One bomber pilot online, a member of a well known squad even said how the mk108 was ruining the sim! What does he want to do? Fly around in his bomber and be shot at with sling-shots and BB guns while he flies on to glory and saves the world?

I was after some b-25s and of course I put the biggest guns on the 109 I could, just like they did in WWII. Unforutnately I had to deal with an escort of four or so Spits. I did have a great altitude advantage, thank goodness as the 109 flies like a house trailer with the mk-108 gunpods on. I zoomed down, they saw me coming, one Spit took the bad evasive manuever of climbing straight away from me and doing a stall-turn in front of my cannons. And of course the same old Krap, it was not his dumb move that got his wing shot off, it was all because I was flying a 109 with a big cannon, as if a Spitfire stalled out hanging in front of me would be immune to any other gun in the sim.

The 20mm German cannons in this sim have a high rate of fire, but are at the bottom of the list as far as 20mm hitting power goes, and the 30mm German cannons, while having the great hitting power they should have, have a bad enough trajectory and a slow enough rate of fire that anyone who hits anything with them deserves accolades, not insults and brush-offs.

Then when you throw in the poor high speed elevator response of the 109, making a zoom and boom shot at high speeds in them takes great skill.

Doing well in virtual combat with this sim in any craft takes a high level of skill. There are no ace-makers. There were lots of 109 pilots in WWII that died without getting one kill for sure. The 109 and it's cannons did not make Hartmann what he was anymore than the 109s cannons, or the Spits traits will be responsible for results in this sim.

When you get your a$$ handed to you online, the only thing to blame is you, you screwed up or don't know what the he!! you are doing in the first place, so shut your pie-hole and go back to the drawing board and quit whining about this sims flight models or that some plane is uber you f*&(king panzy. S!

Jumoschwanz

Jumoschwanz
05-07-2005, 10:02 PM
I lent my "Blond Knight of Germany" to someone so it is not right here to quote. But it is a fact that on one sortie Hartmann shot down four Russian planes, and a while after landing his armorer came to him and told him he had used only 112 rounds.

So I guess he was a good shot, and apparently those German cannons did have quite a kick. I am almost sure that at least a few of those he shot down in this instance were IL2 Sturmoviks, which makes it really impressive huh?

Often when flying online either on coms or chat I will see the 109s refered to as one hit wonders in a derogatory way. Well in light of the above they must have been as close to it as any plane out there in WWII.

One bomber pilot online, a member of a well known squad even said how the mk108 was ruining the sim! What does he want to do? Fly around in his bomber and be shot at with sling-shots and BB guns while he flies on to glory and saves the world?

I was after some b-25s and of course I put the biggest guns on the 109 I could, just like they did in WWII. Unforutnately I had to deal with an escort of four or so Spits. I did have a great altitude advantage, thank goodness as the 109 flies like a house trailer with the mk-108 gunpods on. I zoomed down, they saw me coming, one Spit took the bad evasive manuever of climbing straight away from me and doing a stall-turn in front of my cannons. And of course the same old Krap, it was not his dumb move that got his wing shot off, it was all because I was flying a 109 with a big cannon, as if a Spitfire stalled out hanging in front of me would be immune to any other gun in the sim.

The 20mm German cannons in this sim have a high rate of fire, but are at the bottom of the list as far as 20mm hitting power goes, and the 30mm German cannons, while having the great hitting power they should have, have a bad enough trajectory and a slow enough rate of fire that anyone who hits anything with them deserves accolades, not insults and brush-offs.

Then when you throw in the poor high speed elevator response of the 109, making a zoom and boom shot at high speeds in them takes great skill.

Doing well in virtual combat with this sim in any craft takes a high level of skill. There are no ace-makers. There were lots of 109 pilots in WWII that died without getting one kill for sure. The 109 and it's cannons did not make Hartmann what he was anymore than the 109s cannons, or the Spits traits will be responsible for results in this sim.

When you get your a$$ handed to you online, the only thing to blame is you, you screwed up or don't know what the he!! you are doing in the first place, so shut your pie-hole and go back to the drawing board and quit whining about this sims flight models or that some plane is uber you f*&(king panzy. S!

Jumoschwanz

CUJO_1970
05-07-2005, 11:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> When you get your a$$ handed to you online, the only thing to blame is you, you screwed up or don't know what the he!! you are doing in the first place, so shut your pie-hole and go back to the drawing board and quit whining about this sims flight models or that some plane is uber you f*&(king panzy. S!

Jumoschwanz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


HeHe, it cracked me up that you ended this paragraph with an &lt;S!&gt;


The 109, with only the 20mm cannon and two machine guns, was capable of shooting down any fighter of WWII in a single pass. It's armament was more than sufficient for fighters.

HJM had a similar accuracy with the 109F in Africa.

The 20mm Mg151 after the patch should no longer allow a free pass to some fighters in the damage department.

Blackdog5555
05-07-2005, 11:43 PM
Hartmann was not a dogfighter. He would sneak up behind a rooky IL2 pilot, using the sun to screen him, get under it, get within 50 yards and put a couple of cannon rounds in the oil tank, catching the plane on fire, then run away. Im surprised he used over a hundred rounds... He was an expert at killing cr@p planes at close range. dude, too much caffeine for you.

Von_Zero
05-08-2005, 02:10 AM
heh, he did perfectioned the art of putting one single round in the radiator of a Sturmovik... enough to take it down....
I've read a story some time ago about him downing a La7 (La5 probably) in a hammerhead with 3 20mm rounds... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
i can't wait the real 20mm we're getting http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

HotelBushranger
05-08-2005, 02:17 AM
Lets see how many Allied whiners come up with insults http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Even if you are flying an "undermoddeled" plane, it is still up to the pilot how he flies it, so if he screws up and gets shot down, its his fault. You think Polish pilots in their P11's refused to go up against 109's and 190's because "they're too uber!"

ytareh
05-08-2005, 02:56 AM
Hey Jumoschwantz I think Ive read (here?) of a Luftwaffe ace ,Hartmann ,or Hans Joachim Marseille who used average 12/15 rounds for ALL his kills.

JamesBlonde888
05-08-2005, 05:28 AM
It is well documented that one hit from the Mk-108 is sufficient to bring down a fighter. It wont always happen but it did often enough.

I had a good day in FB not long ago when I shot down 4 I-152's and a MiG-3 and that was with limited ammo in a Bf-109F-2. The trick is to get close enough to see the whites of his eggs.

Ugly_Kid
05-08-2005, 05:55 AM
Yep, Marseille came up with average 15 rounds/kill (used ammunition - not hits). A good story about him is in Toliver/Constable's "Die deutschen Jagdflieger-Asse 1939-1945", detailling his 17 kills on September 1st 1942. There was also a story where they investigated one of his kills and counted the holes IRC. Rall was also known as an exceptional marksman.

I recall reading somewhere that russians themselves concluded that Yak takes in average 1.5 hits from 20 mm before being toast.

Ankanor
05-08-2005, 06:28 AM
On a sidenote, there were events of Me109 returning with more than 200 holes form battles over Britain and the Channel. Kinda strange, you know... On an IL-2 the record is set at about 500 hits, but that are from all kinds of fire, from cannons, machineguns, shrapnell pieces and stuff.

JamesBlonde888
05-08-2005, 06:38 AM
That was with .303 rounds. Not much of a pnch really although the saturation from 8 of them as was standard in 1940 model Hurri's and Spit's knocked down quite a few 109's. I read reports of a He-111 Making it home with approx 800 .303 hits.

F19_Ob
05-08-2005, 06:48 AM
In an interview he said he once attacked four il-2s on low level and they all tried to evade and crashed into ground, being too heavy with bombs.
His easiest 4 kills in the war, he said.

JamesBlonde888
05-08-2005, 06:54 AM
Wonder he didn't crash too from laughinghis @$$ off.

Ankanor
05-08-2005, 06:58 AM
I bet they thought they had the simplified AI FM

ImpStarDuece
05-08-2005, 07:48 AM
That kind of accuracy is repeatable in the game, but its VERY difficult to recreate in an online environment where you have packet loss, compressed dogfights and engagement environments and increased situational awareness.

My best shooting online was downing a Yak-3, La-7 and a P-51 with less than 200 rounds in an FM-2. True it was a 'cockpit off' server, which helps woth gunnery tremendously, but my accuracy was up at a freakish 26%. I normally shoot around 8-10%.

I have seen some 109 drivers consistently averaging 18-19% accuracy, some even pushing over 20%. So if they fire 112 rounds they end up with about 25 hits. Not a lot but if they are well placed coming from a G-6, even with the 20mm, that can still do a LOT of damage.

Then again there are tales of Hurricanes, P-47s, Typhoons, Corsairs, Hellcats, Wildcats, and the like coming home with multiple cannon holes and dozens or even hundreds of light MG rounds in them. Sometimes its all about luck, something which I think the DM models quite well.

SeaNorris
05-08-2005, 08:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Hartmann was not a dogfighter. He would sneak up behind a rooky IL2 pilot, using the sun to screen him, get under it, get within 50 yards and put a couple of cannon rounds in the oil tank, catching the plane on fire, then run away. Im surprised he used over a hundred rounds... He was an expert at killing cr@p planes at close range. dude, too much caffeine for you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And for your information, The IL-2 isnt ****, you whiner http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

p1ngu666
05-08-2005, 08:07 AM
on the bomber thing, u go fly a bomber. no buts, go fly them online.

now see how happy u are when u get battleship armed fighters parking up and blasting away at u.
please repeat this for a hour.

mk108 isnt massivly hard to hit with, but the 37mm in other planes is MASSIVELY harder to hit with, they changed something with them.
in the past ive gotten 3-4 109s with 3-4 shots, got really close with yak9k http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

Skalgrim
05-08-2005, 08:24 AM
toliver/constable book

hartmann could too doghfight,

he had dogfight against 2 p39, the p39 had altitude advantage and one was ace with 25 victory and he had shoot down the p39 ace pilot,

although the p39 had all advantage



hartmann had not prefer dogfight,

but neverheless he could too doghfight, then too hartmann was sometime surprice from enemy pilot

hartmann means that he was 100 times under fire from enemy fighters, that means too hartmann must doghfights, because too russia pilots understand surprise attacks


..

gbollin
05-08-2005, 09:22 AM
In the book The Blond Knight of Germany
Erich Hartman had a fight with Flight of Mustangs. He shot down two and had a running fight with eight more and only bailed from
his plane when he ran out ammo and fuel.
He could Dogfight but he also realised that was
a good way to get killed in a 109.

PBNA-Boosher
05-08-2005, 04:04 PM
Now now... that's not so impressive Look up Hans Joachim Marseille

LeadSpitter_
05-08-2005, 08:03 PM
The p-51 and p-47 were know to explode or rip apart any axis aircraft in one pass as well. theres thousands of different 1 minute guncamera footage clip that shows this.

Even the hurricane was know to burst enemy he111 and 109e in flames with 8 .303s in a 3 second burst.

As for counting holes dents and scratches in a aircraft is silly every thing of entry and exit holes? ever thing of aaa shrapnel.

There is a il2 in russia that had something like 300 holes in its belly which was said to be groundfire from troops.

Something neither does in this game even at .20 range with 225 200 150 100 convergences.

Yog_Shoggoth
05-08-2005, 08:46 PM
In a 109 I never take extra cannons, just makes it harder to hit the other guy with all the extra weight. If you can shoot well you don't need cannon.

Blackdog5555
05-09-2005, 12:47 AM
Well in this IL2 Sturmovik game the sturmy isnt a Cr*p plane but in real life it was not well praised. They were obvious cannon fodder for good LW pilots like Hartmann. In Hartmann's own words he stated he "hated" dogfighting. He would run away rather than dogfight. BTW I didnt say he couldnt dogfight. Just that he wasnt a dogfighter. He was a close range "sniper/ambusher". An excellant pilot and great tactician. Im sure he could dogfight and especially in his book he describes himself quite well. LOL.

///....Also, I heard that the bigger your sig the smaller your peepee. is that true? just laughing, bro...cheers

bolillo_loco
05-09-2005, 01:27 AM
the possibilites are endless. Of all the books I have read there seems to be a real trend. the bulk and majority of pilots seem to bail out of their plane as soon as they get shot up for fear that their plane is going to explode. there also seems to be an exception to this trend, pilots in the pacific seemed to try and stick it out, real a lot of pilot accounts where they worried about, sharks, crocks, snakes, and mosquitos and all the lovely diseases that they carred. pilots flying over cold bodies of water, germans flying over russian held territory.....and similar like senarios..... I can only guess that if a pilot was either being shot at or was just shot up he might leave a still flyable plane for the safety of a silk ride to friendlier territory. accounts (whether true or not) of pilots bailing out of their a/c before anybody even shot is something I have also read and would be the extreme example of what I am talking about.

4 a/c with 122 rds.......the possibilites are endless.

tigertalon
05-09-2005, 02:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
The p-51 and p-47 were know to explode or rip apart any axis aircraft in one pass as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. A part of the problem IMO is that in al lot of cases also ammo-containers in wings or in nose went off, ripping wings or engine apart... This is not modelled in sim.

Ankanor
05-09-2005, 03:06 AM
LS, how do you define "one pass"? and what is its duration? In Other words, if the pass is 30 sec long, that's not actually a "pass", that's more like sitting there showering the target with bullets... Eventually Almost every aircraft will go down. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Was it you, who said the camera went on as the shooting started?...

DarthBane_
05-09-2005, 04:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
The p-51 and p-47 were know to explode or rip apart any axis aircraft in one pass as well. theres thousands of different 1 minute guncamera footage clip that shows this.

Even the hurricane was know to burst enemy he111 and 109e in flames with 8 .303s in a 3 second burst.

As for counting holes dents and scratches in a aircraft is silly every thing of entry and exit holes? ever thing of aaa shrapnel.

There is a il2 in russia that had something like 300 holes in its belly which was said to be groundfire from troops.

Something neither does in this game even at .20 range with 225 200 150 100 convergences. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean the rewritten, edited winners history? There are no bigger liars than those who write about how they won. The pathetic battle results of the side you represent gave tham the reason to represent amero eqipment and guns as great while in RL they were pathetic. With numbers, not skill they swarmed the skies of Europe bombing and killing more than 500 000 civilian population. The white headed eagle from your avatar is raw fish eater and the biggest sissy among eagles. Apropriate.

HotelBushranger
05-09-2005, 04:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">On a sidenote, there were events of Me109 returning with more than 200 holes form battles over Britain and the Channel. Kinda strange, you know... On an IL-2 the record is set at about 500 hits, but that are from all kinds of fire, from cannons, machineguns, shrapnell pieces and stuff. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those were with .303's, what about this, P-40 getting hit with 12.7 and cannon rounds

"Another good point about the P-40 was its amazing ability to absorb punishment and still continue to fight, be it from machine guns and cannons, wear-and-tear, hostile weather, or rough landings. Clive Caldwell, Australia's top-scoring ace with 28 1/2 victories and the leading P-40 ace with 20 1/2 of these victories demonstrated this rather dramatically in North Africa.

While flying top cover for supply planes inbound for Tobruk, two Bf-109's led by the 114-victory ace Werner Schroer ambushed him. The German planes punched 108 machine gun bullets and five 20mm shells into the hapless fighter, damaging its instrument panel, controls, tail, wings, and wounding Caldwell in the back, shoulder and leg.

Instead of crashing to the ground, the Tomahawk managed to stay airborne. And instead of attempting to escape, the Sydney-born Caldwell turned into his attackers and returned fire. He shot down Schroer's wingman, unnerving Schroer to the point that he ran for home. The Australian ace made it home."

_Neveraine_
05-09-2005, 06:45 AM
I pretty sure the 109 didn't recieve the 12.7mm guns till the G6 Bushranger, neither the less an impressive tale. Clive is a true aussie hero http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

tjaika1910
05-09-2005, 07:31 AM
I have shot many rounds with 7.62 and 12.7 mm in RL. Pretty devastating. Espesially the firling, which is four 12.7 together which spreads the fire a lot. Imagine this, close up, it would rip any aircraft apart. The british cut through Heinkels with 8*7.62 in BoB.
I would not stand on the other side of a bomber that was shot with 7.62 machineguns. Most bullets would penetrate and be lethal on the other side.

Trink_Afri-Cola
05-09-2005, 06:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DarthBane_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
The p-51 and p-47 were know to explode or rip apart any axis aircraft in one pass as well. theres thousands of different 1 minute guncamera footage clip that shows this.

Even the hurricane was know to burst enemy he111 and 109e in flames with 8 .303s in a 3 second burst.

As for counting holes dents and scratches in a aircraft is silly every thing of entry and exit holes? ever thing of aaa shrapnel.

There is a il2 in russia that had something like 300 holes in its belly which was said to be groundfire from troops.

Something neither does in this game even at .20 range with 225 200 150 100 convergences. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean the rewritten, edited winners history? There are no bigger liars than those who write about how they won. The pathetic battle results of the side you represent gave tham the reason to represent amero eqipment and guns as great while in RL they were pathetic. With numbers, not skill they swarmed the skies of Europe bombing and killing more than 500 000 civilian population. The white headed eagle from your avatar is raw fish eater and the biggest sissy among eagles. Apropriate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Right on! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

blakduk
05-09-2005, 09:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You mean the rewritten, edited winners history? There are no bigger liars than those who write about how they won. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
IMHO i think you're full of it- there are no bigger liars than those who would deny anyone the chance to question their facts. One thing you can accuse the western allies of is propoganda, but at least the mechanisms are in place for us to question the details.
Totalitarian regimes, such as the Nazis or communists however, are entirely based on propoganda and respond viciously to any questioning.
As the old saying goes: power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The key to successful democracy is checks and limits on power and an acceptance of scrutinuy and questioning.
Ultimately all this 'mines better than yours' ranting is meaningless. Throughout ww2 the technologies of each side were very closely matched, no side had an uber-weapon that was invulnerable. It came down to who was controlling the machinery and who had the better tactics that decided individual conflicts.

Blackdog5555
05-09-2005, 11:15 PM
Ok, the post started of with comments of Hartmann's writing of what a "great dogfighter" he was because he could shoot a few unsuspecting IL2 rookies at close range with a couple of cannon shells. Fair enough.

Ok. And it ends with a few Serbians wanting to rewrite the end of the war because the Bald Eagle is a sissy. BTW, out of curiosity, who's ending is more believable, the Nazis or Commies? or does it matter?
Laughing all the way!! Sucker BD

LeadSpitter_
05-10-2005, 12:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ankanor:
LS, how do you define "one pass"? and what is its duration? In Other words, if the pass is 30 sec long, that's not actually a "pass", that's more like sitting there showering the target with bullets... Eventually Almost every aircraft will go down. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Was it you, who said the camera went on as the shooting started?... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

one pass as in a concentrated 2-3 second burst not firing for 20-30 seconds while hanging on the enemies tail that entire time with a couple of hundred strikes then waiting for the plane to run out of fuel.

And no guncamera film had a toggle switch in the cockpit to turn it on when the pilot choose to only 1 minute of gun camera film in fighters.

Put it this way, go find the iron thickness of a wwii locomotive engine. The go see hundred of clips of .50 cal penatrating them.

Compair that to a fighters pilot armor

sapper78
05-10-2005, 12:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hartmann was not a dogfighter. He would sneak up behind a rooky IL2 pilot, using the sun to screen him, get under it, get within 50 yards and put a couple of cannon rounds in the oil tank, catching the plane on fire, then run away. Im surprised he used over a hundred rounds... He was an expert at killing cr@p planes at close range. dude, too much caffeine for you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Erich Hartman´s second flight journal was stolen from him, by an american or Czech captor, so there are no precise information for the plane types of his kills from 151 to 352. But in the first flight journal, which has the first 150 kills documented in it, there are only six Il-2´s....

Then again, there are 85 La-5´s and 22 p-39´s included in those first 150 kills... are these the crappy planes you are talking abot, Blackdog5555???

irR4tiOn4L
05-13-2005, 05:16 AM
i wonder how the war would have panned out had the Czechs not demobilized and fought for the Sudentan mountains.

LilHorse
05-13-2005, 01:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DarthBane_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
The p-51 and p-47 were know to explode or rip apart any axis aircraft in one pass as well. theres thousands of different 1 minute guncamera footage clip that shows this.

Even the hurricane was know to burst enemy he111 and 109e in flames with 8 .303s in a 3 second burst.

As for counting holes dents and scratches in a aircraft is silly every thing of entry and exit holes? ever thing of aaa shrapnel.

There is a il2 in russia that had something like 300 holes in its belly which was said to be groundfire from troops.

Something neither does in this game even at .20 range with 225 200 150 100 convergences. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean the rewritten, edited winners history? There are no bigger liars than those who write about how they won. The pathetic battle results of the side you represent gave tham the reason to represent amero eqipment and guns as great while in RL they were pathetic. With numbers, not skill they swarmed the skies of Europe bombing and killing more than 500 000 civilian population. The white headed eagle from your avatar is raw fish eater and the biggest sissy among eagles. Apropriate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, numbers, pathetic equipment, sure. Just keep trying in this desperate manner to delude yourself. Did we have superior numbers? Yes, after we shot down droves of your pilots. Remember that well before P-51s arrived on the scene fighter groups flying P-47s went up against (and shot down) the best fighter pilots the LW had. The Western airwar was far more deadly to the LW than Eastern. And that's backed up by the accounts of surviving LW pilots, not U.S. propaganda.

As for pathetic equipment, the M2 was and still is a hard hitting and reliable heavy MG. It is still in use today. And while singly it might not have been very effective against a/c in batteries of six or eight they were devastating. And, yes, they could rip apart fighters in one pass, that is one 2 to 3 sec. burst.

And before you bring up how many people were killed in Allied bombing raids, remember that the SS and Wehrmacht exterminated tens of millions of civilians (20 million in Russia alone).

Oh and your swipe at the bald eagle just proves that you sir are a P.O.S. .

LilHorse
05-13-2005, 01:30 PM
Oh, and before you accuse me of being an Allied whiner, I fly LW about 90% of the time online.

faustnik
05-13-2005, 02:05 PM
You don't even have to go back as far as WW2 footage. Look at rounds from a single .50 hitting a heavy truck in the Iraq War footage. Take that image an multiply by eight for P-47 effect! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

jugent
05-14-2005, 01:01 AM
Dont do the mistake to think that this game mirrors the reality of WWII.
The caracteristics change like a hitlist of rock´n´roll music.
Look at the HE-111, for some patches ago it was fragile as bowl of glass. Two or three hits and the wing fell off.
Today its a real diehard.
The I-16 was a hard match before, it out-speeded, outclimbed, outturned and outgunned a Me-109E. Today it isnt so.
The Jug and the spit was no hard oponent before PF but they are today.
The game changes but the reality didnt.


But some things dont change, the weak arnamment of Me and FW.
Shot 30 rounds in a spit the day before yesterday with a FW.
The spit boiled of explosions but flew on, only some leak in the fuel tank.
Shot 40+ hits in a wounded P-38 the same happend.
After this bursts my 20mm ammo was finished and I didnt bother to continue with the peashot MG.
The Revisight of the FW will never be corrected so thoose things are consistent.

BaronUnderpants
05-16-2005, 05:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And before you bring up how many people were killed in Allied bombing raids, remember that the SS and Wehrmacht exterminated tens of millions of civilians (20 million in Russia alone). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correction......civilian and milatary losses on russian side during intire war was indeed something like 20 milion, but it was hardly the SS and wehrmacht that "exterminated" them....russsian military tactics totally dissregarded the lifes of their own soldiers and civilians wich played a wital role in the huge numbers of losses.

Nothing Hitler did or stood for can be justefied.....but i wonder why people allways seem to forget that Stalin got Hitler beaten when it came to killing of non desirebles.

As for US taking the high road claiming it was all in the name of freedom and liberty doesnt fly with me.....your goverment did some nasty stuff juring the war so.

Xnomad
05-16-2005, 06:11 PM
To even question the .50 cal is mad. Have you ever held a .50 bullet in your hand? That round will shoot through an armoured car, now imagine 8 of those pumping at you and converged from a few hundred metres behind you. No thank you! Ok they make holes whereas the HE 20mm will blast holes but the .50 cal is something that would give me nightmares if I was a real LW pilot. IIRC the .50 would go straight through the armoured seat of a 109 unless it went through a full tank of fuel first.

Jetbuff
05-16-2005, 07:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
on the bomber thing, u go fly a bomber. no buts, go fly them online.

now see how happy u are when u get battleship armed fighters parking up and blasting away at u.
please repeat this for a hour. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I routinely do fly the He-111 and end up just as frustrated when I get half my crew killed in one pass by a .50 cal armed gunship or hispano-toting Spitfires. What do I do about it? Well I don't complain about the gun. Sure, I curse a bit but I hit refly and try a different route hoping to not get caught on ingress and start pestering friendlies for air cover.

Anyone who thinks the Mk108 is an uber cannon needs to fly 109's with only the Mk108 for a few weeks. Then they can come back and give us a run-down of the long list of planes they downed! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

It's good, but it's not great. Low ammo load, terrible trajectory, low RoF and significant recoil make it quite difficult to score a hit except from point blank range. Throw in the fact that it decreases the performance of the plane it's on and it's anything but a wonder-weapon.

OldMan____
05-16-2005, 08:18 PM
Yesterday I saw a documentary about evolution of terminal ballistics for tank technologies.

During this there was several demonstrations in scale of how a AP round interacts with armor. A .50 was used ot illustrate it. There was a test made against a 15mm plate of simple homogeneous steel. The shoot was fired at less than 5 meters. When hitting plate at 0 degrees it punched a hole, perfectly round on the plate and did not stopped for a logn run. When hitting at 30 degrees, the bullet made a big notch on the plate but got stuck trying to get cross it. When at 60 degrees bullet did only a dent of about 4 cm long and 4 mm deep on the plate and bounced.



Not many planes have such armor level, but at 5 meters the bullet had MUCH more power than any bullet would have in RL scenario. At 300 meters I coudl assume at least 1/3 E loss.


So yeap a .50 can punch trough any AC armor plane at reasonable distances when at correct angle... but if it hits at not very good angle.. almost any armor will prevail over it at medium distances.

I don't remember perfectly but I think I saw several 8 mm and 12 mm plates in FW190 and even at pilots armor at other planes. So It is indeed possible that at medium distances many bullets would have been deflected.

Also when the bulelt penetrated on the armor.. NO PIECE OR ARMOR WAS SEVERED FROM PLATE... and this is main cause of internal damage on any armored target that is penetrated by a AP shot. So a single bullet would never make any serious damage unless hitting very specific stuff.

That was advantage of cannons, could not penetrate armor so well, but when it did... heell did run loose.

mynameisroland
05-17-2005, 04:41 AM
regarding armour protection of German planes, I have read that the Luftwaffe pilots were protected from even the Hispanno 20mm shell so long as it hit the seat armour at reasonable range. What the differing seat armour thicknesses also indicate is that there are areas with more than one sheet of armour covering so in effect there is spaced armour. Two sheets of 5mm steel spaced apart a little can be more effective than one sheet of 10mm steel. Im not saying that this was a major feature just that the bulkheads in a 109's rear fuselage would face a round of ammo before it reaches the seat/head armour. The round also has to enter the aircraft. So in effect rather than a single sheet of armour you have 3 or 4 sheets of aluminium and steel / glass to get through.

I read a story of Galland whose 'Blackman' fitted special head armour to Galland's 109 which restricted his rearward vision, this annoyed Galland and he was going to ask his ground crew to remove it, when on mission he was jumped and shot up by a spitfire. The head armour stopped a 20mm round that would have decapitated him. This led to the other 109's of his unit being similarly equiped.

OldMan____
05-17-2005, 06:48 AM
In fact from what I wad studied from terminal ballistics to do my current development work , It seem that 10 mm of armor is MUCH stronger than for example 10 sheats of 1mm armor when considering AP ammo.


Spaced armor is usefull against HE rounds.

mynameisroland
05-17-2005, 07:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
In fact from what I wad studied from terminal ballistics to do my current development work , It seem that 10 mm of armor is MUCH stronger than for example 10 sheats of 1mm armor when considering AP ammo.


Spaced armor is usefull against HE rounds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

maybe it is better to have 10mm than ten seperate 1mm sheets. But to have two sheets of 5mm is a different effect all together.

the Panzer IV was upgraded in WW2 to have spaced armour which effectively decapped incoming shells and enabled the tank to survive. The Leapord used this concept also. A similar concept was used in Battleships where the US navy tended to favour a decapping layer of thinner armour infront of thick armour in prefference to a single thicker plate.

ImpStarDuece
05-17-2005, 07:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
In fact from what I wad studied from terminal ballistics to do my current development work , It seem that 10 mm of armor is MUCH stronger than for example 10 sheats of 1mm armor when considering AP ammo.


Spaced armor is usefull against HE rounds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends on the armour http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif and the type/ size of the kinetic penetrator


Don't want to get dragged into a armour penetration debate; those are to tank nuts as FM debates are to flight simmers.

However, two 5mm plates of armour, assuming they are face hardened, should actually be more effective than one 10mm face hardened piece of armour. WHY?

Well the initial plate considerable dampens the velocity of a round and may damage or deform the round. Also, armour penetration, unless it's at 0 degrees, creates yaw in a projectile. This yaw usually means that the penetrator strikes at a less favourable angle than on the original plate.

So now you have a damaged or deformed round, which collects a fair amount of debris usally in the form of spall and the penetrator 'plug' that the round has to push through, coming out of one face hardened plate and then trying to push itself through another hard face and armour mass. Quite often the additional face hardening will deflect or stop the penetrator.

Similarly, sometimes a penetrator doesn't have to go all the way through to do damage. If a tank round penetrates 48mm of a 50mm armoured shell, often the spalling effect caused by armour deformation and kinetic transfer will push large segments of the armour into the interior of whatever its protecting.

You can see this in a lot of tank designs from the 1970's and early 80's. Internally spaced armour usually had an outer faced hardened layer, then a 'soft' layer of RHA, then a 'hard' layer which was usually some form of ceramic, but everything from fiberglass to kevlar composites has been used/trialed. I remember reading an article that T-62s had been retrofitted with a spaced armour that included rubber plates backed by multiple layers of fiberglass.

I'm NOT a physicist and there are probably a 1000 holes in my examples here, but this is what I remember from my time as a treadhead. So, have fun shooting me down.

WWTharn
05-17-2005, 07:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">He was an expert at killing cr@p planes at close range. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe CrOp planes but ****? IL-2 is'nt a **** plane by any means.

When I fly bombers, I find it a bit easier to make it to target by 'not' flying a direct route and getting serious altitude. I know it's frustrating getting shot to pieces, but thats whats going to happen when you fly large targets that don't maneuvre well.
Unless you have alot of fighter cover - you really need to take a strategic route to the target - come from where they least expect.(barring a small map of course)

I fly the 109 and the 111 the majority- but I like every single plane in the sim. I have no stats on gun velocity/trajectory/kills per sortie on real pilots/or what Stalin/Hitler and Churchill had for Lunch on any given day- All I truly know is It's fun to fly online and surviving a mission in any craft is commendable.

Jumoschwanz
05-17-2005, 08:37 AM
All the half inch and bigger projectiles are certainly not something you want to get hit with. I just started this thread because of the silly ones online who blame the whole reason for them getting shot down is this or that armament is not correct on the other guys plane. Like it is not their fault they are hanging in front of someone's guns in the first place.

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacmakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

-Hermann Goering, Hitler's designated successor, before being sentenced to death at the Nuremberg trials.

"If tyranny and oppression come this this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -James Madison

OldMan____
05-17-2005, 12:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
In fact from what I wad studied from terminal ballistics to do my current development work , It seem that 10 mm of armor is MUCH stronger than for example 10 sheats of 1mm armor when considering AP ammo.


Spaced armor is usefull against HE rounds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends on the armour http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif and the type/ size of the kinetic penetrator


Don't want to get dragged into a armour penetration debate; those are to tank nuts as FM debates are to flight simmers.

However, two 5mm plates of armour, assuming they are face hardened, should actually be more effective than one 10mm face hardened piece of armour. WHY?

Well the initial plate considerable dampens the velocity of a round and may damage or deform the round. Also, armour penetration, unless it's at 0 degrees, creates yaw in a projectile. This yaw usually means that the penetrator strikes at a less favourable angle than on the original plate.

So now you have a damaged or deformed round, which collects a fair amount of debris usally in the form of spall and the penetrator 'plug' that the round has to push through, coming out of one face hardened plate and then trying to push itself through another hard face and armour mass. Quite often the additional face hardening will deflect or stop the penetrator.

Similarly, sometimes a penetrator doesn't have to go all the way through to do damage. If a tank round penetrates 48mm of a 50mm armoured shell, often the spalling effect caused by armour deformation and kinetic transfer will push large segments of the armour into the interior of whatever its protecting.

You can see this in a lot of tank designs from the 1970's and early 80's. Internally spaced armour usually had an outer faced hardened layer, then a 'soft' layer of RHA, then a 'hard' layer which was usually some form of ceramic, but everything from fiberglass to kevlar composites has been used/trialed. I remember reading an article that T-62s had been retrofitted with a spaced armour that included rubber plates backed by multiple layers of fiberglass.

I'm NOT a physicist and there are probably a 1000 holes in my examples here, but this is what I remember from my time as a treadhead. So, have fun shooting me down. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you are talking about hardened face armor, yes, two layers may be superior specially due to decapping effect and the increased capability of breaking a projectile that hits the second layer sidesway.


But no AC carried Hardened face armor, since it is not feasible to make hardened face armor in a 1 cm armor. All armor in planes were homogeneous armor.

Since homogeneous armor ideia is to deflect a bullet a single bigger leayer will allways be superior (a second layer cannot help in the impulse equation when to decide if the muzzle will bounce or the armor will bend and begin theprocess of breaching).

Also souble layers may be used to cause pre-detonation of explosive charge, before the TRUE armor is reached.

But again.. no plane carried such complex armor in WW2.. well maybe the IL2 Sturmobrick.. but can't think in any other.


Just for the sake of information. Spaced armor is beggining to get unused in modern tanks since is largely outpaced by reactive armor, where a layer of explosive is between two layers of armor, and creates a counter attack that destroy the projectile or makes it loose much E.

BlackStar2000
05-17-2005, 12:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DarthBane_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
The p-51 and p-47 were know to explode or rip apart any axis aircraft in one pass as well. theres thousands of different 1 minute guncamera footage clip that shows this.

Even the hurricane was know to burst enemy he111 and 109e in flames with 8 .303s in a 3 second burst.

As for counting holes dents and scratches in a aircraft is silly every thing of entry and exit holes? ever thing of aaa shrapnel.

There is a il2 in russia that had something like 300 holes in its belly which was said to be groundfire from troops.

Something neither does in this game even at .20 range with 225 200 150 100 convergences. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean the rewritten, edited winners history? There are no bigger liars than those who write about how they won. The pathetic battle results of the side you represent gave tham the reason to represent amero eqipment and guns as great while in RL they were pathetic. With numbers, not skill they swarmed the skies of Europe bombing and killing more than 500 000 civilian population. The white headed eagle from your avatar is raw fish eater and the biggest sissy among eagles. Apropriate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif Very Good Bane

jugent
05-17-2005, 12:47 PM
Mostly I get no kills with 112 rounds in one plane.

LilHorse
05-17-2005, 01:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And before you bring up how many people were killed in Allied bombing raids, remember that the SS and Wehrmacht exterminated tens of millions of civilians (20 million in Russia alone). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correction......civilian and milatary losses on russian side during intire war was indeed something like 20 milion, but it was hardly the SS and wehrmacht that "exterminated" them....russsian military tactics totally dissregarded the lifes of their own soldiers and civilians wich played a wital role in the huge numbers of losses.

Nothing Hitler did or stood for can be justefied.....but i wonder why people allways seem to forget that Stalin got Hitler beaten when it came to killing of non desirebles.

As for US taking the high road claiming it was all in the name of freedom and liberty doesnt fly with me.....your goverment did some nasty stuff juring the war so. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry to correct your correction but the generally accepted figures for civilian deaths for the Soviets is about 20 million people. The Soviet military deaths account for about another 10 million. And while much of the cause behind those appalling figures can be blamed on Stalins gutting of his own military (yes, I know Stalin killed about as many of his own people without any help from the Germans) it was still the Germans, largely, who did the killing. And quite often it was well behind the lines they had pushed into Soviet territory. The Wehrmact would push through, and the Algemiene SS would follow. It is well documented that they would engage in systematic killing of entire villages, towns and cities.

As for whatever reasons why the U.S. fought the war, there are many. Some of them realistic and some idealized (afterall, who doesn't idealize such things). But our forces did not engage in anything even remotely as bad as what the Germans did in the East and what the Russians did when they pushed West (killing civilians, pillaging, mass rape, arson, etc.) as far as the civilian population was concerned.

Ankanor
05-17-2005, 01:58 PM
Il-2 doesn't carry homogeneous armor. Its armor is double layered, not spaced. The outer layer is "soft", its task is to deflect the projectile. The second layer is 3mm very hard steel, which stops completely or destroys the projectile(if it is an AP)

BaronUnderpants
05-17-2005, 02:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Sorry to correct your correction but the generally accepted figures for civilian deaths for the Soviets is about 20 million people. The Soviet military deaths account for about another 10 million. And while much of the cause behind those appalling figures can be blamed on Stalins gutting of his own military (yes, I know Stalin killed about as many of his own people without any help from the Germans) it was still the Germans, largely, who did the killing. And quite often it was well behind the lines they had pushed into Soviet territory. The Wehrmact would push through, and the Algemiene SS would follow. It is well documented that they would engage in systematic killing of entire villages, towns and cities. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Totally agree with u and wasnt in any way trying to minimize what the SS did and stood for....thy did the nastiest things by far in the war not counting Stalins treatment of his OWN populations wich is different issiue.

When it comes to puting the werhmach and SS in the same box its well known that the SS wasnt put in wery high regards by the common german soldier...even hated and despised.

The "nasty" stuff i was refering to on the allied side is among other things the bombing of Dresden for example.....intense bombing of a non stratigic citie, causing a firestorm killing something like 100 000 people ( dont know the exact figure ) for no reason at all....other than propaganda purposes.

Killing people is killing people in the end. killing a murderes beast is one thing ( Hitler and his henchmen ) killing inosent civilians is another ( done by both sides )

Jagdtiger
05-17-2005, 04:31 PM
Figures for Dresden is around 130 000

LilHorse, just a reminder about whay the US did and did not... ever heard about a tiny town in Japan called Tokyo... well US bombs took care of 100 000 women and children and a few soldiers there in 1945...

OldMan____
05-17-2005, 04:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jagdtiger:
Figures for Dresden is around 130 000

LilHorse, just a reminder about whay the US did and did not... ever heard about a tiny town in Japan called Tokyo... well US bombs took care of 100 000 women and children and a few soldiers there in 1945... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

and of course.. was hitler and Stalin who decided to trwo two nukes in almost completely civilian cities... It is easy to forget the slaughter when you only see a bright ball of light.

No one was inocent in that war... NO ONE!

lrrp22
05-17-2005, 05:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:

No one was inocent in that war... NO ONE! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True- but they are not equally guilty, either...


.

WWTharn
05-17-2005, 06:16 PM
You people need to quit Having these hind sight debates about who or what certain countries and soldiers did. I'm pretty fed up with seeing the U.S. bashing on all these posts.
"The 'Evil U.S.A'- **** them for being such b@stards."

Preposterous!!!

OldMan____
05-17-2005, 08:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:

No one was inocent in that war... NO ONE! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True- but they are not equally guilty, either...


. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Level of guilty is a subject that is completely subjective, and not for us to judge, not for any living men. The only thing that is for us to judge is our own decisions in how to not make such mistakes again.

All the guilty ones are dead, so lets not become new guilty ones by judging others by our own standars, no mather wich ones they are.

Men shoud pay les attention to other's erros and more to your own. To pay attention on others and to blame them is the easiest way to make your own stupidities.

lrrp22
05-17-2005, 09:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:

Level of guilty is a subject that is completely subjective </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, its not....

Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and Fascist Italy were the aggressors and instigators- they were the 'bad guys', period. They sowed the wind with a war of brutal conquest and genocide, and as a result they reaped the whirlwind of Total War.

While no one that participates in war can do so with clean hands, the claim that all parties involved were one as bad as the other is the worst kind of relativistic revisionism.

BaronUnderpants
05-18-2005, 02:07 AM
quote:
__________________________________________________ ________________________
You people need to quit Having these hind sight debates about who or what certain countries and soldiers did. I'm pretty fed up with seeing the U.S. bashing on all these posts.
"The 'Evil U.S.A'- **** them for being such b@stards."
__________________________________________________ ________________________


BTW.....instead of screaming US-bashing everytime someone critecises the above mentioned country, maby u should take a minute and think about why "everybody" is doing the bashing....."what we are doing is allways right and what everybody else is doing is wrong" isnt a wery good argument. Looking at yorselfe and egnolege what u did wrong never killed anyone.

cheers.

BaronUnderpants
05-18-2005, 02:17 AM
And if u wanna talk country bashing.......lets talk about a country just reasently bashing a surtain french speaking country in europe...calling them cowards and what not.

cheers.

mynameisroland
05-18-2005, 04:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
In fact from what I wad studied from terminal ballistics to do my current development work , It seem that 10 mm of armor is MUCH stronger than for example 10 sheats of 1mm armor when considering AP ammo.


Spaced armor is usefull against HE rounds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends on the armour http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif and the type/ size of the kinetic penetrator


Don't want to get dragged into a armour penetration debate; those are to tank nuts as FM debates are to flight simmers.

However, two 5mm plates of armour, assuming they are face hardened, should actually be more effective than one 10mm face hardened piece of armour. WHY?

Well the initial plate considerable dampens the velocity of a round and may damage or deform the round. Also, armour penetration, unless it's at 0 degrees, creates yaw in a projectile. This yaw usually means that the penetrator strikes at a less favourable angle than on the original plate.

So now you have a damaged or deformed round, which collects a fair amount of debris usally in the form of spall and the penetrator 'plug' that the round has to push through, coming out of one face hardened plate and then trying to push itself through another hard face and armour mass. Quite often the additional face hardening will deflect or stop the penetrator.

Similarly, sometimes a penetrator doesn't have to go all the way through to do damage. If a tank round penetrates 48mm of a 50mm armoured shell, often the spalling effect caused by armour deformation and kinetic transfer will push large segments of the armour into the interior of whatever its protecting.

You can see this in a lot of tank designs from the 1970's and early 80's. Internally spaced armour usually had an outer faced hardened layer, then a 'soft' layer of RHA, then a 'hard' layer which was usually some form of ceramic, but everything from fiberglass to kevlar composites has been used/trialed. I remember reading an article that T-62s had been retrofitted with a spaced armour that included rubber plates backed by multiple layers of fiberglass.

I'm NOT a physicist and there are probably a 1000 holes in my examples here, but this is what I remember from my time as a treadhead. So, have fun shooting me down. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you are talking about hardened face armor, yes, two layers may be superior specially due to decapping effect and the increased capability of breaking a projectile that hits the second layer sidesway.


But no AC carried Hardened face armor, since it is not feasible to make hardened face armor in a 1 cm armor. All armor in planes were homogeneous armor.

Since homogeneous armor ideia is to deflect a bullet a single bigger leayer will allways be superior (a second layer cannot help in the impulse equation when to decide if the muzzle will bounce or the armor will bend and begin theprocess of breaching).

Also souble layers may be used to cause pre-detonation of explosive charge, before the TRUE armor is reached.

But again.. no plane carried such complex armor in WW2.. well maybe the IL2 Sturmobrick.. but can't think in any other.


Just for the sake of information. Spaced armor is beggining to get unused in modern tanks since is largely outpaced by reactive armor, where a layer of explosive is between two layers of armor, and creates a counter attack that destroy the projectile or makes it loose much E. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi OldMan

Reactive armour in itself has been replaced by composite armour such ast Chobham armour developed in Britain and used by the UK, USA , Germany and some speculate Israel. France also uses composite armour in the Lerec - what is interesting about this tank is that it is developed with modular armour which can be removed if damaged and replaced or even upgraded with different laminate compositions.

With reg to facehardened armour I dont think it was implied it was used on WW2 aircraft but I still believe that having two sheets of 5mm steel (which is academic figures really as its more like 7mm then 12mm for the head rest eg) will deflect a .50cal round fired at a reasonable distance at an angle to the target other than perpendicular.

Blutarski2004
05-18-2005, 08:33 AM
WW2 M2 AP projectile fired by M2 Browning AP @ 2850 f/sec MV would penetrate a half inch of homogeneous armor plate at several hundred yards distance and 20 degrees of obliquity IIRC. I posted the official US Army chart data on the Ubiforum about a year ago.

As to the question of whether two spaced 5mm plates would be superior to a single 10mm plate, I sugges tthat thise interested visit Nathan Okun's Guna and Armor page at Navweaps. Against kinetic energy rounds, a sandwich of two 5mm plates is inferior (by about 20 pct) to a single plate of 10mm. If spaced, a great deal depends upon the nature of the projectile being defended against, the distance between the plates and their angles to one another. Spaced armor may be useful against HE projectiles, with one plate acting as the fuze initiator and the second plate acting as the fragment and blast barrier. I believe something along these lines was installed in some later model Spitfires. I'm not sure spaced armor would be very effective against strictly kinetic energy rounds, however.

Penetration of a bullet through a plate does produce yaw, but the yaw tends to alter the path of the bullet to one closer to normal (i.e. - right angles) to the plate being penetrated.

Blutarski2004
05-18-2005, 08:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jagdtiger:
Figures for Dresden is around 130 000

LilHorse, just a reminder about whay the US did and did not... ever heard about a tiny town in Japan called Tokyo... well US bombs took care of 100 000 women and children and a few soldiers there in 1945... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Latest scholarship from newly opened East German records puts actual Dresden death toll at 25,000. The big officially announced numbers were Goebbels propaganda, which the DDR chose to rpeat for their own cold war propaganda purposes. Why was it bombed? Dresden was the principal transportation hub serving the German East Front (not to mention a major center for the manufacture of precision instruments, fuzes, and optics.

The fire raids on Tokyo also eliminated a great deal of Japanese war industry, which had been dispersed into civilian areas of Tokyo in order to avoid offering a concentrated target for aerial bombing.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets becuase they were supply and transportation hubs serving the island of Kyushu, which was to be the objective for the projected first landing of the US on the Japanese home islands.

War is ugly business, but there is still a logic to it.

BigKahuna_GS
05-18-2005, 09:08 AM
S!


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">lrrp22 posted Tue May 17 2005 20:53
quote:
Originally posted by OldMan____:

Level of guilty is a subject that is completely subjective


No, its not....

Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and Fascist Italy were the aggressors and instigators- they were the 'bad guys', period. They sowed the wind with a war of brutal conquest and genocide, and as a result they reaped the whirlwind of Total War.

While no one that participates in war can do so with clean hands, the claim that all parties involved were one as bad as the other is the worst kind of relativistic revisionism. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Very well said Irrp & Blutarski.



__

Jagdtiger
05-18-2005, 09:11 AM
Blutarski, Goebbles propaganda claims were 200 000, the allies and the rest of the world figured it out to around 100 000 at the time,in reality it was estimated to 130 000.

Look up Robert McNamara, former US minister of defense (not at the time), he said in an interview 2002, that if the americans had lost the war against Japan, they would have been put on trail for warcrimes,his example was the Tokyo raids and hundres of other smaller but not lesser raids...
America has not been involved in an modern war on their home continent, so they seem to take this issue on bombing civilians fairly easy.

I hope that this helps...

Blutarski2004
05-18-2005, 09:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
Level of guilty is a subject that is completely subjective, and not for us to judge, not for any living men. The only thing that is for us to judge is our own decisions in how to not make such mistakes again.

All the guilty ones are dead, so lets not become new guilty ones by judging others by our own standars, no mather wich ones they are.

Men shoud pay les attention to other's erros and more to your own. To pay attention on others and to blame them is the easiest way to make your own stupidities. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... I'm not necessarily criticizing your basic sentiments here. But your comments sound like they come from a position of moral relativism, which I consider a very slippery slope. If we should not make judgements regarding acts of others, then how can we come to the conclusion that any of those acts were "mistakes" not to be repeated by us? What is a "mistake"? Is it an error of judgement? Is it a moral transgression?

If you are saying that the theoretical concept of strategic bombing of civilian population centers as a means of quickly (and therefore relatively mercifully) prosecuting a war to an early end proved false, that it was a waste of assets and a cause of needless human suffering, that it should not be repeated, then I can take your point.

Blutarski2004
05-18-2005, 09:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jagdtiger:
Blutarski, Goebbles propaganda claims were 200 000, the allies and the rest of the world figured it out to around 100 000 at the time,in reality it was estimated to 130 000.

Look up Robert McNamara, former US minister of defense (not at the time), he said in an interview 2002, that if the americans had lost the war against Japan, they would have been put on trail for warcrimes,his example was the Tokyo raids and hundres of other smaller but not lesser raids...
America has not been involved in an modern war on their home continent, so they seem to take this issue on bombing civilians fairly easy.

I hope that this helps... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Go here -

http://www.486th.org/Photos/Misc/dresden.htm

for a brief overview of Frederick Taylor's recent book, "Dresden: Tuesday, Feb. 13, 1945" . I urge you to read the book. Taylor is the very first historian to have had access to the actual Nazi era Dresden fire raid records which were held in DDR archives. It is a very even-handed account of not only the Dresden raid, but also an indictment of Arthur Harris's specific use of Bomber Command as a terror bombing tool against the German civilian population.

BTW, Taylor's Dresden raid death total was 35,000, not 25,000 as I stated earlier from memory.

ddsflyer
05-18-2005, 09:36 AM
In his book "Samurai", Saburo Sakai says he knocked down a P-39 with (I can't remember exactly) either 4 or 8 rounds total.

Jagdtiger
05-18-2005, 09:56 AM
Blutarski, the book looks intresting...
However when reading several reviews on this book, the author seems to be not quite as objective as an author of a subject like this should be.
But I will give it a try...
Thanks for the tip

LilHorse
05-18-2005, 10:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jagdtiger:
Figures for Dresden is around 130 000

LilHorse, just a reminder about whay the US did and did not... ever heard about a tiny town in Japan called Tokyo... well US bombs took care of 100 000 women and children and a few soldiers there in 1945... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look, I never said that strategic bombing isn't horrible. It is. Do you really think that any war has ever been fought without civilian casualties? But it mus be remembered that Allied command estimated that in a land invasion of Japan, not only would there have been about 500,000 Allied casualties but that such an operation would have cost the Japanese people about 2.5 million casualties. This was something nobody would want. The Allies wanted to end the war as quickly as possible. And Japan, despite its condition at that time, still had not surrendered.

I'm not saying we didn't kill innocent people. We did. The difference between the Allies and the Axis in this regard (besides numbers, which is a horrible thing to debate) is that killing innocent people was not the focus of our actions. Whereas it WAS the focus of the actions by the Axis. The Nazis were intent upon exterminating the "untermensch". The Japanese are guilty of the slaughter of millions in those areas they occupied. They concidered them to be "barbarians".

I know that the U.S. killed innocents in the war. All sides did. But the numbers on the part of the Axis are overwhelming.

OldMan____
05-18-2005, 10:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:

Level of guilty is a subject that is completely subjective </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, its not....

Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and Fascist Italy were the aggressors and instigators- they were the 'bad guys', period. They sowed the wind with a war of brutal conquest and genocide, and as a result they reaped the whirlwind of Total War.

While no one that participates in war can do so with clean hands, the claim that all parties involved were one as bad as the other is the worst kind of relativistic revisionism. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont agree with your "guilty resport" so that proves that guilty is SUBJECTIVE.. in my view is difrent from yours.. so it is sibjective (and My family was almost decimated in war on both sides on actions against civilians, all sides were guilty) So learn to respect others opinion, you dont have to agree with them but respect them. Not respecting others was what created such disaster.


And yes blutarski.. that is what I am talking about. The end do not justify the means. Any country that attacked civilian population directly is EQUALY GUILTY. Fighting against military s one thing.. killing civilians has NO EXCUSE!


Are you less criminal if you kill 10 or 20 people? If A guy kills B guys family.. is B guy not a criminal if he kills A family? No! Both are criminal, both are equaly guilty!

lrrp22
05-18-2005, 10:15 AM
OldMan,

I don't agree with, or respect your premise that the Allies were every bit as bad as the Axis. In fact, I find it rather disturbing. Is it also your view that a Nazi victory would have been no worse than an Allied one?

BTW, the Axis war machine was composed of far more than just soldiers...

LilHorse
05-18-2005, 10:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
BTW.....instead of screaming US-bashing everytime someone critecises the above mentioned country, maby u should take a minute and think about why "everybody" is doing the bashing....."what we are doing is allways right and what everybody else is doing is wrong" isnt a wery good argument. Looking at yorselfe and egnolege what u did wrong never killed anyone.

cheers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you'll find most Americans would readily admit to what the U.S. has done wrong.
The problem many Americans have is being blamed for everything that is wrong in the world. This is mainly a result of our position in the world. It's human nature. People are more likely to look to someone else to blame for problems that are of their own making. An easy target is the the most powerful nation at a given point in history. They are easily made out to be the "big bully".

Sure, we've done rotten stuff. Every country has. Show me a country with no atrocities in it's past and I'll show you a country that has knowingly cozied up to those that have for their own benefit. Sad but true.

OldMan____
05-18-2005, 10:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
OldMan,

I don't agree with, or respect your premise that the Allies were every bit as bad as the Axis. In fact, I find it rather disgusting. Is it also your view that a Nazi victory would have been no worse than an Allied one?

BTW, the Axis war machine was composed of far more than just soldiers... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Am am talking nothing about the victory, but about the means in the war and the causes of the war remoting many years before hitler got to be chancelor.

I think YOUR opinion is disgusting for thinking that taking a civilian life is different depending on wich side took the life of who. And anywways I must respect your opinion, since not everyone may had had the expecience of have quite a lot of family murdered by both americans and germans at cold blood and understand what I am talking about.

lrrp22
05-18-2005, 10:53 AM
How many soldiers should the Allies have been willing to sacrifice in order to avoid killing civilians? Is it a 1:1 ratio? Lower? Higher? Is an Allied soldier's life worth intrinsically less than a German civilians? What if that civilian is producing Panzer V's? What about the fact that the Allied soldier is a conscript who would never have even been a soldier if it wasn't for the German nation's, soldiers and civilians alike, expansionist and genocidal impulses?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
OldMan,

I don't agree with, or respect your premise that the Allies were every bit as bad as the Axis. In fact, I find it rather disgusting. Is it also your view that a Nazi victory would have been no worse than an Allied one?

BTW, the Axis war machine was composed of far more than just soldiers... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Am am talking nothing about the victory, but about the means in the war and the causes of the war remoting many years before hitler got to be chancelor.

I think YOUR opinion is disgusting for thinking that taking a civilian life is different depending on wich side took the life of who. And anywways I must respect your opinion, since not everyone may had had the expecience of have quite a lot of family murdered by both americans and germans at cold blood and understand what I am talking about. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

BigKahuna_GS
05-18-2005, 11:00 AM
S!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Jagdtiger--Robert McNamara, former US minister of defense (not at the time), he said in an interview 2002, that if the americans had lost the war against Japan, they would have been put on trail for warcrimes,his example was the Tokyo raids and hundres of other smaller but not lesser raids... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


McNamara the mastermind behind the Vietnam War strategy ?

His strategic bombing list was taken right out of the movie Hot Shots; The Targets for Today are--an accordian factory and a mime school.

McNamara has a brief moment of self realization in his memoirs when he admits that his strategic war plans and the war in VietNam were misguided and a mistake. Just how long did it take MaNamara to figure out that his way of conducting war was prolonging it and costing more lives on both sides ? McNamara never really came to grips with his failures until he found out he could make some money selling a book.

McNamara was probably the most imcompetent Secratary of Defense in US history.


As for WW2 Allied strategic bombing, using civilian populations as human shields to hide war factorys was a gamble that both the Nazis & Imperial Japanese leaders were willing to take. Look at the eventual outcome of WW2, Hilter did not negotiate a surrender but brought his country to total ruin. Japans fanatical military leadership was heading in the same direction with seppaku on a national level. Do you think it was ever beyond these leaders to sacrafice the civilain population to protect the war effort ?

High altitude precision bombing was very good during WW2, never the less bombs would fall wide of their mark by hundreds of feet. WW2 bombing accuracy would be considerd unaccetable by todays standards. High level Nazis & Japanese commanders bear much of the responsibility for civilian casualties by allied strategic bombing by placing them in harms way around factorys and industrial centers in an effort to disburse and conceal their locations from destruction. And of course by starting hostilities in the first place.

__

Jagdtiger
05-18-2005, 11:46 AM
I disagree with you, when you're saying that McNamara is incompetent, he played a very important role in getting things to calm down in the Cuba crisis...

OldMan____
05-18-2005, 11:58 AM
If needed.. all soldiers. If you kill massively civilians intentionaly you are doing exactly the same thing that you are fighting against.

I would prefer to LOOSE the war before signing an order to murder hundreds of thousands of civilians. Ghandi proved that are better ways of defeating an enemy. You may not always be able to do it pacifically, but butchering is never never never a human action.

Don 't get me wrong, I am not saying Hitler has not a monster, or Stalin or the NAZI. But the men that signed Dresden bombing order was a monster too, the men that choosed Hiroshima and Nagasaki as the targets for the Nukes was a monster. No mather what was their final objectives! No human can be called human if he is able to give such na order.


So both sides are equaly guilty or deliberately murdering people, no mather what was their reasons to do so. Starting a war is not a crime, is a war declaration. Murdering civilinas in a war is a crime, no mather if you started the war or the other one started the war.

My country did the same stupid thing one century before that. We were attacked by Paraguai. We defeated them and murdered almost all male population of civilians as punishment. I am ashame of that. The fact that Paraguai attacked us (estimulated and supported by England) is not an excuse to what my country did.

Blutarski2004
05-18-2005, 12:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
High altitude precision bombing was very good during WW2, never the less bombs would fall wide of their mark by hundreds of feet. __ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... The precision of US WW2 precision bombing depended a very great deal on the training level of the bomber crews and meteorological conditions over the target. It was by no means uncommon for bombs to stray many &gt;thousands&lt; of feet from the intended target.

lrrp22
05-18-2005, 01:05 PM
OldMan,

Good thing you weren't in Churchill or FDR's place. By losing the war, you would have allowed the deaths of millions of civilians as well as the enslavement of countless more millions. Obviously you are a dyed-in-the-wool moral relativist- unable to see context, intent or larger purpose.

Do you really think Ghandi would have troubled Hitler in the least? I'm sure Civil Disobedience would have saved millions of Jews from the gas chambers. Please...

Blutarski2004
05-18-2005, 01:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
If needed.. all soldiers. If you kill massively civilians intentionaly you are doing exactly the same thing that you are fighting against.

I would prefer to LOOSE the war before signing an order to murder hundreds of thousands of civilians. Ghandi proved that are better ways of defeating an enemy. You may not always be able to do it pacifically, but butchering is never never never a human action.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... With all due respect Old Man, what Gandhi proved was only that a campaign of civil-disobedience could be effective against a regime which was not psychologically willing to respond with massive violence. It is not reasonable to present the Gandhi experience as an exemplar which can be followed in all case. Look what happened to India during the great Partition.

Likewise, it is strictly a theoretical position to say that one would be prepared to lose a war rather than cause the deaths of many innocents. (assuming you mean unintentional or collateral deaths as opposed to the intentional deaths of the extermination camp or the terrorist).

A state of war in modern terms can imply a struggle whose stakes are physical survival. The consequences of defeat may mean the extermination of a people and the instituions it holds dearest. Under such conditions, if my enemy seeks to take advantage of my perceived moral standards by using his civilian population as a shield for his war effort, I cannot be expected to simply disarm myself as a result. Under such circumstances, distasteful choices between bad and worse alternative must oft times be made in the pursuit of a perceived greater good. Fifty years later, of course, the historians will amuse themselves by criticizing such decisions from the comfort of their academic armshairs.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Don 't get me wrong, I am not saying Hitler has not a monster, or Stalin or the NAZI. But the men that signed Dresden bombing order was a monster too, the men that choosed Hiroshima and Nagasaki as the targets for the Nukes was a monster. No mather what was their final objectives! No human can be called human if he is able to give such na order.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... I disagree with your definition of "monster". IMO a profound difference exists between the deliberate, intentional, and organized murder of innocent people (Hitler and the Jews; Stalin and the bourgeoisie and the Kulaks and the intelligentsia and oh so many others; Pol Pot and the city-dwellers) on one hand and killing of the innocent without purposeful intention (Civilian deaths from American "precision" bombing campaign, for example). War is ugly business and the innocent always suffer. The only fair question to ask under such conditions of war is whether their suffering is accidentally or intentionally administered. Killing versus murdering - both words imply death, but they have different meanings.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
My country did the same stupid thing one century before that. We were attacked by Paraguai. We defeated them and murdered almost all male population of civilians as punishment. I am ashame of that. The fact that Paraguai attacked us (estimulated and supported by England) is not an excuse to what my country did. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... This was the war against the Paraguay of dictator Francisco Lopez? mid-19th century? I have read a little about this war - unelievable. Lopez literally and physically fought almost to the last male Paraguayan. Didn't he also send units of armed women to fight? I think I read that as well.


BTW, my post is not intended to flame you or your philosophical opinions. I am just offering a viewpoint from another perspective. My personal sentiments are manifestly against war as well, but my wishful outlook has to a great degree been tempered by human history.

Blutarski2004
05-18-2005, 01:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jagdtiger:
I disagree with you, when you're saying that McNamara is incompetent, he played a very important role in getting things to calm down in the Cuba crisis... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... The record of Robert Strange McNamara speaks for itself. He was trained as a financial manager and accountant. He had no business running either the Defense Department or the Vietnam War. He was an arrogant dilettante who had no real grasp of the job or the people he was leading. It took twenty years for the American military to undo the damage he had done.

OldMan____
05-18-2005, 02:24 PM
And that is the main difference on your poitn of view and mine. Murdering is not justifiable by any means on my point of view. On yours it is. So this proves that guilt ina war is SUBJECTIVE. In your point of view someone can be not gulty of massive murder.. in my opinion there is no excuse to such act. For me anyone that order a massive murder of defensless civilian is a monster, I make no distinctions abou t the situation that generated such act.

I respect your opinion, I just want my own respected too. I don't take your post as any kind of agresion, by the contrary, as I said. forums are for discussion and as long no one offend each other, every opinion is valid.


I don't think you need to surrender, but if enemy army is HIDDING behinmd civilians.. it is not a threat anymore. So it does not justify to do such things. Americans pushed harder at end of war just not to loose Europe to Soviet Union. if they had no worries with that they would advance more carefully and with much less bloodbath from both sides.

Obvisouly as i said the Ghandi example was just that an EXAMPLE that things can be solved in more inteligent ways.


That is the war. It is (at least here) called Paraguaian War. Lopez was Paraguay Ruler. Brasil was an Empire at that time and ruled by an Emperor. And yes you are correct, our troops only made Paraguay surrender when there was no one left able to fight.

We could have just destroyed their army and returned home. We do not needed to do all that we did.

horseback
05-18-2005, 02:36 PM
In a total war, enemy civilians are a military asset; skilled workers are necessary to produce and maintain the weapons of war, fuels and lubricants for their military vehicles, clothing and food for the enemy's soldiers. You can't win a war by capturing a king or a capital, you must, in a war for survival, destroy your enemy's means of making war. This includes the destruction or disabling of his workforce, not just his soldiers, and you do that the same way you destroy or disable the soldiers.

This is not an endorsement of this philosophy, but I do recognize that if the other side takes this as their creed, it is pretty difficult to avoid adapting it yourself, and hope to win.

The Allies were faced by an enemy that attacked without warning and without discrimination between civilian and military targets. At the Pearl Harbor attack, civilians were strafed in their cars on their way to church by Japanese aircraft (ironically, more than one of their victims was of Japanese descent), and German aircraft were directed to strafe columns of civilians fleeing the battlefield in order to hamper the movement of Allied units to the front in Poland, France, and Russia.

German submarines targeted non military (and often, non-British) ships with the specific aim of starving the British population, Japanese 9and probably German) subs shelled the US coast on at least one occasion, and saboteurs were sent into the US well before the declaration of hostilities with the specific task of disrupting industrial production by injuring as many workers as possible in 'accidents.'

The fact is that strategists and politicians overestimated the accuracy and overall effectiveness of strategic bombing and air power in general prior to and during WWII, and culturally, there was an attempt to punish 'top-down' or authoritarian societies for their choice of leaders, when they largely were incapable of choosing their leaders as we chose them in America or Britain.

Even today, few of us appreciate how much less effective air to ground weapons were twenty years ago compared to today, and believe that every civilian casualty was accomplished with malice aforethought.

Initially, Allied leaders went to great lengths to avoid damaging private property and creating civilian casualties. A lot of RAF bomber crew were lost early in the war because they aborted missions when it was judged that their targets were too close to civilian activity. Obviously, that made them easier targets for defending fighters, lumbering away with full bombloads and looking for an open area to dump them...

A few months of seeing their own civilians targeted coupled with the realization that trained aircrew are hard to replace as quickly as they were being lost cured the Allies of their naivete, and they started playing for keeps. Enemy civilian losses became an acceptable moral hazard, to be avoided when there was a low or no cost, and ignored in the face of tactical priorities.

Again, there was clearly an attempt to punish the enemy civilian populace into turning against their leaders, but that was a strategic error. It had never been attempted before, and no one knew how it would work, but it did help satisfy the voters back home, who wanted someone to pay for the Gold Stars in their windows, the separation from their sons, fathers, and husbands, the extra work and cost and inconvenience of having to prevent an attempt at world domination (as they saw it).

War is a filthy nasty business, and the people who have the least say in how it is conducted usually end up suffering the most. However, if someone invites me to a knife fight in front of his family and friends with the aim of killing me and taking my belongings, he shouldn't whine if I show up with a shotgun and blow every potential threat away.

Now how did we get from Hartmann's marksmanship to this?

cheers

horseback

OldMan____
05-18-2005, 02:45 PM
Easy.. if everyone had same marksmanship as hartman, no civilian casualities would be needed :P



Normal civilians casualities in a war is not what I am talking about. I am talking about massive attacks on alsmost or tottaly civilian population with intent to cause terror or to test a new weapon or to impress other country.

Eaxmples are German V2 and V1 bombing, American Nukes and others...

This is the kind of thing that I say have no excuse. A lot of this acts were made when nothing would change the outcome of the war (like the Nukes) and were not acts to obtain victory, but for politicas, vengeanceful or otrher pathetic reasons. Germans made it, Americans made it, and almost every country made it up to some degree.

Ankanor
05-18-2005, 02:52 PM
I believe some way along the transformation of the thread into another M2 penetration and power flame war http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif But I might be mistaken...

lrrp22
05-18-2005, 03:05 PM
Nukes didn't change the outcome of the war? Tell that to the million or so Allied soldiers poised to invade the Home Islands during the Fall of '45. Do you really think Japan would have surrendered in August without Hiroshima and Nagasaki? How many more Japanese civilians would have died if the invasion had gone forward as planned?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:

Normal civilians casualities in a war is not what I am talking about. I am talking about massive attacks on alsmost or tottaly civilian population with intent to cause terror or to test a new weapon or to impress other country.

Eaxmples are German V2 and V1 bombing, American Nukes and others...

This is the kind of thing that I say have no excuse. A lot of this acts were made when nothing would change the outcome of the war (like the Nukes) and were not acts to obtain victory, but for politicas, vengeanceful or otrher pathetic reasons. Germans made it, Americans made it, and almost every country made it up to some degree. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Blutarski2004
05-18-2005, 03:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
Easy.. if everyone had same marksmanship as hartman, no civilian casualities would be needed :P
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... OldMan, you show a sharp sense of humor. Bravo.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Normal civilians casualities in a war is not what I am talking about. I am talking about massive attacks on alsmost or tottaly civilian population with intent to cause terror or to test a new weapon or to impress other country.

Eaxmples are German V2 and V1 bombing, American Nukes and others...

This is the kind of thing that I say have no excuse. A lot of this acts were made when nothing would change the outcome of the war (like the Nukes) and were not acts to obtain victory, but for politicas, vengeanceful or otrher pathetic reasons. Germans made it, Americans made it, and almost every country made it up to some degree. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... I'd suggest to look at the nuclear bombs dropped by the USA from a different point of view. Japan was not on the verge of surrender in August of 1945, but was in fact preparing a defense of the home islands. The dropping of the two nuclear bombs was, without question, responsible for ending the war in the Pacific. The fact that it took TWO such bombs, and the historically unprecedented public intervention of Emperor Hirohito (who was nearly assassinated for his efforts) to end the fighting should be seen as an indicator of the commitment of the ruling military junta to continue the war to the last utter gasp. They had 375,000 fresh troops on the island of Kyushu alone, which was not to be the main battlefield. they had mobilized the entire civilian population into a militia force, even going to the extreme of forming suicide units of women armed with nothing more than bamboo pikes. The fact that the invasion of the Japanese home island of Kyushu, did not need to take place without question saved the lives of at least a half million American and (mostly) Japanese soldiers and civilians - not wounded casualties, but literal lives - in that campaign alone.

There is a book by the name of DOWNFALL (foget the author's name) which discusses in great detail the planning, preparations, and decision processes of both sides at this point in the war. It makes chilling reading.

From the perspective of our relatively peaceful existence today, such dry arithmetical calculations in real human lives does seem uncomfortable, even distasteful. But in the crucible of modern war, that is the harsh calculus which confronts even the most moral leader.

Again, my opinion.

horseback
05-18-2005, 03:58 PM
lrrp22 has a very valid point-I personally have four uncles (my father turned 15 a month before V-J Day, or he might well have been there too) who were slated to take part in that operation, they and their offspring (with their grandchildren, we're up to close to 100 people) would probably not be with us today had at least one of the atomic bombs not been dropped.

Considering that the Soviets were supposed to join in hostilities against Japan, coupled with what we saw at Saipan and Okinawa (where large portions of the civilian population committed suicide rather than fall into 'degenerate' American soldiers' hands), I have to believe that very few Japanese at all would have survived, and none in the Soviet sector, if their conduct in Europe is any indication. Many of the people alive today in Japan may well owe their existance to the the Hiroshima bomb, if not the one used on Nagasaki.

Consider also that neither Truman nor any one else had a real understanding of the destructive power of these weapons. The test in New Mexico was conducted in a desert, and Truman himself had to base his decision on black and white films and eyewitness accounts, which fall far short of the stark reality of the site (I've been there). The ability to translate what the bomb mounted on a tower did to an already desolate area into what it would do (in human terms) with an air burst over a city is way beyond most of us.

The power of the weapon was simply an abstraction. In fact, it might be argued that enemy civilians 10,000 miles away were an abstraction for all but a very few people in America or anywhere else outside their borders, for that matter. The morality of hitting 'civilian' targets had already been set aside in view of the execrable conduct of the Axis (and especially the Japanese) at the war's outset.

cheers

horseback

OldMan____
05-18-2005, 04:19 PM
If that is what is tought in school in your contries. Here and in several other countries we learn that Jpan asked for surrender negotiations one week before the nukes, and was ignored with purpose if make the Nuke use possible.

Nuke usage was only intended to prove to Soviet Union that US was powerfull enough to stop it in case they decided to continueconquering europe.



Don't know if the first part is true. But I have no doubt about the second one.

Don't want to start this on a flame war, but this again put up my point that all this subject is subjective to the one who tells the story.

BaronUnderpants
05-18-2005, 04:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But it mus be remembered that Allied command estimated that in a land invasion of Japan, not only would there have been about 500,000 Allied casualties </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Estimated being the key word here.....do u seriosly belive that? 10 times more than total casualties of US troops during the entire war!

The war against Japan was more or less over for pete sake.

Anywho.....if there is anything that can be called good that came out of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki it would be that no one ever even dared to do it again in the following 50 years.............maby that saved us all.

Was it right to do it in the first place...NO....The people developing and dropping the darn thing got sh*t lucky and probablly saved the world, they could as easily have done the oppesite and killed us all.

Its allways easier to be smart after the fact.......lucky us http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

horseback
05-18-2005, 05:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
If that is what is tought in school in your contries. Here and in several other countries we learn that Jpan asked for surrender negotiations one week before the nukes, and was ignored with purpose if make the Nuke use possible.

Nuke usage was only intended to prove to Soviet Union that US was powerfull enough to stop it in case they decided to continueconquering europe.

Don't know if the first part is true. But I have no doubt about the second one.

Don't want to start this on a flame war, but this again put up my point that all this subject is subjective to the one who tells the story. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

While it is true that the Japanese approached the Soviet Union to act as an intermediary to find out terms, the Soviets did not pass this information on to the actual combatant countries (Stalin, after all, had not made a declaration of war on Japan at that time-he waited until the day after the Hiroshima bomb).

In any case, the conditions were unconditional surrender, and clearly stated as early as the Casablanca Conference (1943), and repeated regularly thereafter. The Japanese had demonstrated more than once that they would use an apparent surrender as a ruse to inflict casualties upon their enemies, and I doubt that anyone at that point was willing to trust them any farther than they could be thrown.

Certainly, the atomic bombs' use (and those were the ONLY A-bombs in the world at that time-no reserves in case Stalin decided to take up residence in a nice little French villa on the Riviera) had a secondary role as a deterrent. The primary role, again, was to bring the Japanese to the realization that there would be no last minute reprieve or miracle to deliver them if they just kept fighting.

You might recall how well that attitude worked for the Germans, who would undoubtedly have been the first recipients of the atomic bomb if we could have gotten it ready in time. Instead, their country was plowed up from one end to the other, with many more civilian casualties than Japan ended up suffering.

The failure of the Japanese to comply with our stated terms after the first bomb made the second necessary from any standpoint. It really did convince most of the senior diehards in the Japanese military that it was over.

There was still at least an attempt to kidnap the emperor, and a few senior officers and officials were killed in the abortive coup before the acceptance of surrender terms was made. John Toland's Rising Sun gives a good account of this, and is quite sympathetic with the Japanese point of view.

What they teach you in your country is no less suspect than what they teach in America, my friend, but common sense has to tell you that if Truman really feared that the Soviets would get frisky in Europe, he would have kept one of his two superbombs in reserve. The Soviets had the Western Allies quite easily outnumbered in ground forces in Europe, and we had no means of rapidly mobilizing and re-deploying troops from the Pacific and the continental US to Europe in time to affect the outcome.

Truman probably had been made aware that the Soviets already had agents in place to let Stalin know what resources we had on hand. Obviously, if keeping the Soviets in their agreed zones was the main consideration, one of the A-bombs and a wing of B-29s would have been stationed in England in August of 1945, just in case.

They weren't.

cheers

horseback

OldMan____
05-18-2005, 05:41 PM
I am sorry if I believe more in historian from a neutral source, but I do.

And I still think, as most of our historian research indicates that this was not needed.

Before you say, "what Brazil knows about this?" You must know that just after surrender, a VERY large amount of japanese flee from their country not to live under american intervenction. Brazil took most of them and no place in world have more Japanese outside Japan then Brazil. We had quite a lot interest about the true on this subject at that time. And Brazil WAS at war with Japan and Germany also. So our historian research are not to be underestimated, as well I agree as your own historians are not to be underestimated. You all know true is never so easy to find.



And is too much assumption to say that IF something was not done... THAT thing would happen or not happen. If predicting the future was so much easy... we would not had WW at first place.


My tought, simple as that. After enemies Armed force was shatered, better ways of getting a surrender were possible, would they take longer? Maybe yes, Maybe no, we will never know. Same is valid on USA vs Japan as in URSS vs Germany as in Brazil vs Paraguai as in Rome vs Chartago etc...

Anyway, beleive in what you want, you won't cahnge my mind and wont change the mind of half the wolrd that beleives that that was wrong. I respect your beleives.

We cannot say that a more ponderated action would not work since not many attemtps were made... If the man had not tried to fly, and had just kept in mind that would not work because it didn't worked at first time... we would not be talking in this forum.

lrrp22
05-18-2005, 06:02 PM
OldMan

You need to research the number of Japanese troops garrisoned in the Home Islands and the extensive preperations being made to resist the invasion. An invasion would have been an absolute blood bath.

horseback
05-18-2005, 06:04 PM
So you got a bunch of 'unreconstructed' Japanese immigrants to influence your viewpoint in your country? Along with the unrepentant Confederates you got in the 1860s and God knows how many Germans? People who never observed first hand how Americans treat a defeated enemy, and only know what their wartime governments told them.

Yeah, good reliable, unbiased sources.

cheers

horseback

lrrp22
05-18-2005, 06:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But it mus be remembered that Allied command estimated that in a land invasion of Japan, not only would there have been about 500,000 Allied casualties </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Estimated being the key word here.....do u seriosly belive that? 10 times more than total casualties of US troops during the entire war!

The war against Japan was more or less over for pete sake.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ten times? Approximately 408,000 U.S. troops were killed during the Second World War. The war to roll-back Japanese territorial gains was nearly over- the war to defeat Japan was far, far from over.

OldMan____
05-18-2005, 06:53 PM
I neer told an invasion was the solution.



And not using "bunch of imigrants" as source of information, but historians that studied both versions. And immingrant from the war are far better source of true than OFFICIAL DATA.

Yeap our population has a lot of japanese, germans, Italians and about anything you may find anywhere in the world and we are proud of that. If you have any kind of problem with the type of population in a country you should be the first one to not discuss this kind of things.

And we observed how american treated defeated enemies, they did a good jog in Germany after the fiasco from WW1. And we also know how it treats allies, since USA helped to dispose our democracy just after the war in order to put a military government in to power. So do not start to attack my country Mr. I know much more about USA history than you might know about our history. Do not even start to think you may judge our biasing. If we were a biased country we would not be the country invited to make the first speech on every UN meeting in the last 50 years.

We made our own mistakes and we took full responsabilities from it. But being a biased country was never one of our flaws.


I don't want to discuss this anymore since some people are starting to get uncivilized here. Alough I am gratefull to the ones that contributed to an adult discussion of point of views.

Blutarski2004
05-18-2005, 08:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
If that is what is tought in school in your contries. Here and in several other countries we learn that Jpan asked for surrender negotiations one week before the nukes, and was ignored with purpose if make the Nuke use possible.

Nuke usage was only intended to prove to Soviet Union that US was powerfull enough to stop it in case they decided to continueconquering europe.

Don't know if the first part is true. But I have no doubt about the second one.

Don't want to start this on a flame war, but this again put up my point that all this subject is subjective to the one who tells the story. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Indeed, Japan approached the Soviet Union in July/Aug 1945, as I recall. Their first contact was to propose an alliance with the USSR. When the Soviets refused the offer, the Japanese then proposed peace with attached conditions through intermediaries in SwitZerland. One week before the first A-Bomb drop, the USA issues a call for surrender on unconditional terms. The Japanese response was that the US proposal was not worthy of a reply.

The US then decided to use the bombs to end the war as expeditiously as possible. Here is why:

1. The US invasion of Okinawa represented the largest American amphibious invasion effort in history - larger than its contribution to the Normandy landing.

2. It took three months to capture an island of 640 square miles.

3. It cost the US a total of 49151 casualties (12520 dead + 49151 wounded) which numbers represented a 35 pct casualty rate for the ground forces committed to the battle.

4. Approx 107,000 Japanese soldiers died in the defense of Okinawa - about a 98 percent death rate.

5. Approx 100,000 Okinawan civilians died during the battle.

6. The Japanese home island of Kyushu, objective for Operation Olympic, was 14,000 square miles in area.

7. According to Japanese testimony, Kyushu was to be defended by a total of approx 450,000 Japanese soldiers on the ground, with aviation, naval, and various kamikaze assets operating in support from nearby home bases.

8. By the most conservative measure, using only one half of the casualty rates of the Okinawa battle, there would have been something on the order of 200,000 Japanese military deaths, and 200,000 Japanese civilian deaths. Using the actual Okinawa experience, the death toll could have reached as high as 800,000 Japanese soldiers and civilians.

9. If the US committed troops to the Kyushu invasion at the same 1.5 to 1 ground force ratio as at Okinawa, and suffered the same 35 pct casualty rate, it could have expected to suffer about 225,000 total casualties, including approx 56,000 dead.

11. The island of Kyushu represented only about 9 percent of the land area of Japan.


It mystifies me why so many people seem to believe that the US decision to drop the A-Bomb was somehow lightly taken.


Observation - More Japanese civilians died in the battle of Okinawa than in either A-Bomb attack.

I invite you to draw your own conclusions here. Maybe those other school lessons also do not tell the whole story.

lrrp22
05-18-2005, 10:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

It mystifies me why so many people seem to believe that the US decision to drop the A-Bomb was somehow lightly taken.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They believe it because it's what they want to believe. Conventional wisdom in much of the world assumes that everything the U.S. does, and has done, is generally malevolent in both intent and execution.

Abbuzze
05-19-2005, 05:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

It mystifies me why so many people seem to believe that the US decision to drop the A-Bomb was somehow lightly taken.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They believe it because it's what they want to believe. Conventional wisdom in much of the world assumes that everything the U.S. does, and has done, is generally malevolent in both intent and execution. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or maybe cause things like the interview I saw some years ago in the TV.
They ask a high US Officer (I have to admit, I forgot his name) if it would be an alternative to show some japanese representative or ambassadors a demonstration of an A-bomb.
This Officer answerd, this would be a stupid idea, cause if the bomb not work, it would be rather unimpressive to this japanese guys.
So at least this officer seems to took it for a good idea to drop a "non working" A-bomb over a japanese City.

And as also stated in this thread, in Tokyo also died more people while the conventional bombing with firebombs, so why should it more difficult to decide to drop an A-bomb?
The only other answer would be that the responsable persons were disapointed of the effect.

If you take a look at Bomber Harris, he had no real pang of concience to attack housings. Why should this be different in the USAAF.
Edit: Or the LW or VVS.

I´m pretty sure even without Okinawa the bomb would be dropped, why?

a) They had the bomb, and
b) they could do it. And
c) most important, they had nothing similar to fear!!

OldMan____
05-19-2005, 06:09 AM
The above conslusions match mine own.


And you also may start to think that your sources do not tell whole story. The issue is why to drop the A bomb at a civilian city? Why not drop it at a military harbor? It would have the same effect to prove that US would not be defeated in any way. I doubt any person in world would have pointed fingers to US if they had attacked a Military Harbor or a fleet at see.


Decision on a non military target was intentional (they were not military targets , since they were almost untouched by other attacks)



And we do not think all that US does is evil, but a lot of thing it did was evil, as well as a lot of brithish, German, Japanese, Russian, Chinese and as I already said even Brazilian actions in the past. So do not make this a ANTI-US thread by yourself. Reading my posts carefully you will see I condem quite a lot of countries actions.. we are discussing US issues because only response I got was on the american issue.

Abbuzze
05-19-2005, 06:18 AM
Pressed the wrong button. Sorry.

ImpStarDuece
05-19-2005, 06:26 AM
I live in the city that was fifth on the list of potential nuclear weapon targets so this hits a little close to me. I also live 200 kilometers from Nagasaki and have visited the peace park several times. It's a humbling experiance.

The cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki WERE both military targets. Nagasaki was one of the major shipping facilities for southern Japan and responsible for much of the millitary traffic that passed from the China sea south to the Pacific.

Hiroshima was a major manufacturing city with a significant garrison and a major headquaters and logistics centre.

Neither were exclusive military or non-military targets, finding something like that in Japan would be close to impossible. The only thing that I could consider close to that would be some of the airbases in northern Hokkaido, 1500 km north of Nagasaki. Both cities had significant military value.

Japan had over 100 large cities that were targets of bombing raids. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been target earlier, but only lightly, usually from very high alt by single cells of bombers. They were relatively untouched by the bombing and as a result had not dispersed their facilities like a lot of regions in Japan had. That was one of the reasons they were on the lists. As targets they were fresh, high value ones, not areas that had previously been heavily bombed. Nagasaki was an alternate, and Bocks Car was diverted from two other targets before it bombed Nagasaki harbour through a break in the overcast.

The bombing was a tragedy, but an invasion would of possibly been worse. I know how fanatical the Japanese can be about honour and duty and sacrafice, I work with them every day of the week. Japane would be in a far worse state now if it had been invaded, both for the people themselves and thier world view and for the country and the historical and cultural treasures it holds.

OldMan____
05-19-2005, 06:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
I live in the city that was fifth on the list of potential nuclear weapon targets so this hits a little close to me. I also live 200 kilometers from Nagasaki and have visited the peace park several times. It's a humbling experiance.

The cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki WERE both military targets. Nagasaki was one of the major shipping facilities for southern Japan and responsible for much of the millitary traffic that passed from the China sea south to the Pacific.

Hiroshima was a major manufacturing city with a significant garrison and a major headquaters and logistics centre.

Neither were exclusive military or non-military targets, finding something like that in Japan would be close to impossible. The only thing that I could consider close to that would be some of the airbases in northern Hokkaido, 1500 km north of Nagasaki. Both cities had significant military value.

Japan had over 100 large cities that were targets of bombing raids. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been target earlier, but only lightly, usually from very high alt by single cells of bombers. They were relatively untouched by the bombing and as a result had not dispersed their facilities like a lot of regions in Japan had. That was one of the reasons they were on the lists. As targets they were fresh, high value ones, not areas that had previously been heavily bombed. Nagasaki was an alternate, and Bocks Car was diverted from two other targets before it bombed Nagasaki harbour through a break in the overcast.

The bombing was a tragedy, but an invasion would of possibly been worse. I know how fanatical the Japanese can be about honour and duty and sacrafice, I work with them every day of the week. Japane would be in a far worse state now if it had been invaded, both for the people themselves and thier world view and for the country and the historical and cultural treasures it holds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well the version told to us is that both cities where selected because they were untouched so A-bomb effect could be better studied. And only minor military assets were present at the city (not talking about industry.. but about weapons, soldiers, bases etc...) I might be wrong, but all books I read, and military historians I talked with state that.

Targetting a military Harbor or fleet would have been much more human anyway. And I understand this issue with invasion, remember Paragauian defense to the very last man and in fact quite a lot of woman too.

I will reapet.. I never said Invasion was the solution. Maybe NOT DOING any of these options?

How about a large blockade and continued bombing of any renewed naval forces until exaustion?

Maybe dropping the Nuke just outside tokyo's bay? That would kill some people, but much more people would get impressed by the bomb since a lot more people would be alive after seeing the explosion to have fear of it. In fact I think that very last option would be the best one. The emperor and all his high military officeers would SEE with theirs eyes the explosion, with minimal losses.

Maybe and just MAYBE after that if nothing else managed to solve the issue it could be possible to consider a direct bombing.

Blutarski2004
05-19-2005, 07:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Abbuzze:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

It mystifies me why so many people seem to believe that the US decision to drop the A-Bomb was somehow lightly taken.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They believe it because it's what they want to believe. Conventional wisdom in much of the world assumes that everything the U.S. does, and has done, is generally malevolent in both intent and execution. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or maybe cause things like the interview I saw some years ago in the TV.
They ask a high US Officer (I have to admit, I forgot his name) if it would be an alternative to show some japanese representative or ambassadors a demonstration of an A-bomb.
This Officer answerd, this would be a stupid idea, cause if the bomb not work, it would be rather unimpressive to this japanese guys.
So at least this officer seems to took it for a good idea to drop a "non working" A-bomb over a japanese City.

And as also stated in this thread, in Tokyo also died more people while the conventional bombing with firebombs, so why should it more difficult to decide to drop an A-bomb?
The only other answer would be that the responsable persons were disapointed of the effect.

If you take a look at Bomber Harris, he had no real pang of concience to attack housings. Why should this be different in the USAAF.
Edit: Or the LW or VVS.

I´m pretty sure even without Okinawa the bomb would be dropped, why?

a) They had the bomb, and
b) they could do it. And
c) most important, they had nothing similar to fear!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... If you beleive this, then you must ask yourself why the US made another surrender call t Japan one week before droppingthe first bomb.

Blutarski2004
05-19-2005, 07:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
I live in the city that was fifth on the list of potential nuclear weapon targets so this hits a little close to me. I also live 200 kilometers from Nagasaki and have visited the peace park several times. It's a humbling experiance.

The cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki WERE both military targets. Nagasaki was one of the major shipping facilities for southern Japan and responsible for much of the millitary traffic that passed from the China sea south to the Pacific.

Hiroshima was a major manufacturing city with a significant garrison and a major headquaters and logistics centre.

Neither were exclusive military or non-military targets, finding something like that in Japan would be close to impossible. The only thing that I could consider close to that would be some of the airbases in northern Hokkaido, 1500 km north of Nagasaki. Both cities had significant military value.

Japan had over 100 large cities that were targets of bombing raids. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been target earlier, but only lightly, usually from very high alt by single cells of bombers. They were relatively untouched by the bombing and as a result had not dispersed their facilities like a lot of regions in Japan had. That was one of the reasons they were on the lists. As targets they were fresh, high value ones, not areas that had previously been heavily bombed. Nagasaki was an alternate, and Bocks Car was diverted from two other targets before it bombed Nagasaki harbour through a break in the overcast.

The bombing was a tragedy, but an invasion would of possibly been worse. I know how fanatical the Japanese can be about honour and duty and sacrafice, I work with them every day of the week. Japane would be in a far worse state now if it had been invaded, both for the people themselves and thier world view and for the country and the historical and cultural treasures it holds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well the version told to us is that both cities where selected because they were untouched so A-bomb effect could be better studied. And only minor military assets were present at the city (not talking about industry.. but about weapons, soldiers, bases etc...) I might be wrong, but all books I read, and military historians I talked with state that.

Targetting a military Harbor or fleet would have been much more human anyway. And I understand this issue with invasion, remember Paragauian defense to the very last man and in fact quite a lot of woman too.

I will reapet.. I never said Invasion was the solution. Maybe NOT DOING any of these options?

How about a large blockade and continued bombing of any renewed naval forces until exaustion?

Maybe dropping the Nuke just outside tokyo's bay? That would kill some people, but much more people would get impressed by the bomb since a lot more people would be alive after seeing the explosion to have fear of it. In fact I think that very last option would be the best one. The emperor and all his high military officeers would SEE with theirs eyes the explosion, with minimal losses.

Maybe and just MAYBE after that if nothing else managed to solve the issue it could be possible to consider a direct bombing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... As the Imp pointed out, both cities were indeed legitimate military targets, which had not yet been seriously attacked. In fact, Nagasaki made the target list explicitly because it was a transportation hub serving the island of Kyushu, which was the next intended invasion objective. Interestingly, Kyoto, the ancient capital of Japan, was removed from the American target list precisely because it was not a target of military worth and was considered to be an important cultural site worthy of preservation.

After spending billions and billions of dollars to create these new weapons in the biggest wartime scientific research project in the history of mankind, which produced only two bombs, what logic would there be in wasting them in "demonstrations"? The Los Alamos test proved that the bomb design would work. If there had been any doubt about that point, the US would never have risked the loss of the enriched uranium in a dud, not when one considers the immense amount of money and effort exended to create it in the first place.

The fact that the Japanese military junta still intended to carry on the war even after both bombs had been dropped clearly tells the story. If any nation should revere a national leader, the Japanese should hold Hirohito in the very highest esteem. What he did to bring about peace took an incredible amount of moral courage.

You suggested the alternative of blockading the Japanese Home Islands. How long would that have taken? How much more bombing would have taken place to prevent the manufacture of more suicide weapons and to prevent the recovery of Japanese war industries? How many innocents would have had to starve to death before the military junta would decide to give up? A hundred thousand? A million? Two million? Four million? Japan was a country of 100 million people in 1945. What would have been world opinion today if a million or two million Japanese had starved to death under an American blockade? It would have been held up aa a great crime against humanity, equal to Hitler's extermination camps. This is another example of the ugly and difficult calculus of war.

I'm not trying to make a big debate here. But, if you have doubts about whether we here in the US have been taught "the truth" about this story, please do not assume that what you have been taught is necessarily the true story either. Everyone has agendas .....

FlatSpinMan
05-19-2005, 08:19 AM
If you go to the Atomic Bomb Peace Park and Museum in Hiroshima you will see in the displays that Hiroshima was the headquarters of the IJA for the defence of western Honshu. I'd say that is sufficient evidence that it was a legit military target.

WholeHawg
05-19-2005, 09:15 AM
It's a curious how we go from.....

"But it is a fact that on one sortie Hartmann shot down four Russian planes, and a while after landing his armorer came to him and told him he had used only 112 rounds."

To a debate on WWII American nuclear strategy.

Just an observation http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

lrrp22
05-19-2005, 09:28 AM
The assumption by non-Americans seems to be that the use of the Atom Bomb is taught as an unequivocally positive act in American schools. That is simply not the case. I am 36 years old and even 25 years ago, use of the A-bomb over Japan was taught as, at best, a necessary evil. At the university level, that debate raged much as it does here.

Blutarski2004
05-19-2005, 10:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
And we do not think all that US does is evil, but a lot of thing it did was evil, as well as a lot of brithish, German, Japanese, Russian, Chinese and as I already said even Brazilian actions in the past. So do not make this a ANTI-US thread by yourself. Reading my posts carefully you will see I condem quite a lot of countries actions.. we are discussing US issues because only response I got was on the american issue. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... Fair comment, OldMan. It's just that the whole A-Bomb issue strikes me close to home. My business puts me in touch with a lot of foreign people. When they start telling me about their impressions of the USA, I'm always saying to myself that it sure doesn't sound like the country I live in.

It's like someone describing Brazil as if it is all like the slums of Rio de Janeiro.

ddsflyer
05-19-2005, 10:14 AM
I can't believe the hand-wringing I hear. We (the U.S.) were facing an enemy that:
1. Attacked us first with a sneak attack on a Sunday for God's sake.
2. Routinely beheaded prisoners ,civilians and raped and pillaged on an unprecedented scale.
3. Gassed and slaughtered 6 million Jews.
4. Conducted bioweapons research on prisoners
and...

Sure as hell would have used the bomb on us if they had it first.

horseback
05-19-2005, 10:47 AM
Before I go on to address the subject, I want to assure OldMan that my comments about Japanese or German immigrants coming to his country immediately postwar had no racial element, but were meant to point out that their point of view would not be quite as balanced as he seems to assume. For the record, my children are biracial (their mother is Chinese), and my maternal grandfather was named Schultz (and his mother was Native American). That pretty much makes me a typical American.

I can't afford to be racist in the way you appear to assume I am; I'd have to lynch myself and the people I love the most.

That said, it amazes me that you can maintain that Brazilian (or any other nation's) scholars, no matter how well educated or trained, can claim absolute knowlege of Harry Truman's motives without his recorded or written confirmation.

Why drop the atomic bombs on Japanese cities? Do the math. Military and geopolitical decisions have to be made on a combination of what you know for a fact, and the worst possibilities you can imagine. We had no desire to take or inflict, the kinds of casualties necessitated by direct invasion of the Japanese Home Islands. The Japanese soldier was poorly equipped by Western standards, but no one could match their discipline or fault their professionalism. Their generals were quite competent to organize an effective (in the sense that the attacker would pay a very high price) defense, and we had no means of positively identifying exactly how much fuel or ammunition reserves they had available.

We knew that they had been experimenting with biological and chemical weapons on Chinese prisoners; in the last defense of their homeland, would they fail to use these weapons?

The Germans refrained from chemical biological warfare because they knew the Allies would respond in kind, and that would create no advantage for them. Japanese culture was much more fatalistic, and inclined to gambling for an all-or-nothing strategy.

Certainly, we could continue our blockade of Japan, but what about the vast territories they still held? Should we have condemned millions of Chinese (including, as it turned out, my sons' grandparents), Burmese, Vietnamese, Malayans, Indonesians, Taiwanese, Koreans and Filipinos to continued captivity and domination, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of western Allies' POWs and captured civilians who were not, as we realized from the accounts of those freed in the parts of the Phillippines we had control of, being treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions?

The moral consequences of starving a few million Japanese has been explored, but the fact that there would be even more people starving first in Japanese held territories has been largely ignored, not to mention the time and life consuming requirement of digging the Japanese military out of every nook and cranny they still held in Asia and the Pacific.

Brazil and other South American countries might have faced the requirement of taking more than token casualties, because millions more ground troops might have been required if the Japanese decided to hold out to last gasp.

So, on the one hand, we use two really powerful bombs on two cities, killing maybe a quarter million Japanese (and Allied estimates were not that high), ending the war quickly at that point, or we could drag it out for another year or two, possibly doubling (at the very least)the overall toll in lives taken in the Pacific Theater, while dragging most of the world's economies into a black hole.

You can pretend, from the vantage of hindsight, that everything would have turned out all hearts and flowers anyway, but the people making the decisions had no crystal balls, U-2s, spy satellites or underground intelligence networks in Japan. They had to make their decisions on the basis of the worst case, because their responsibility was not to the Japanese who had started and perpetuated the war on the ugliest possible terms, but to their own people, who wanted the war over and as many of their sons home in one piece as possible as soon as possible.

cheers

horseback

bazzaah2
05-19-2005, 11:10 AM
top post horseback, quality indeed.

dragonhart38
05-19-2005, 11:16 AM
Hartmann thought dog fighting was a very good way to lose one's life and thought it was of no use. You can say perhaps this was not a very chivalrous attitude but the guy did what he had to in order to survive while attempting to accomplish the mission he was asked to do.
Can't fault him for that.

LilHorse
05-19-2005, 11:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But it mus be remembered that Allied command estimated that in a land invasion of Japan, not only would there have been about 500,000 Allied casualties </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Estimated being the key word here.....do u seriosly belive that? 10 times more than total casualties of US troops during the entire war!
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know where you get your statistics. Your statement above implies that there was only 50,000 casualties amoung U.S. troops in WWII. Total deaths alone of American troops in WWII from all causes was about 405,000. Granted that includes even accidents stateside, but the majority were combat related.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The war against Japan was more or less over for pete sake.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If 'estimated' comes into question for you then 'more or less' lands in the same boat. There was no formal declaration of surrender. There was the mobilization of troops. Tojo was still running the show. What were the Allies supposed to think about that situation?

NorrisMcWhirter
05-19-2005, 12:11 PM
I'll ask the same hypothetical question that I always ask when this topic crops up.

Assuming that you think it's acceptable to detonate nuclear devices on chiefly civilian targets, and that the axis had developed an atomic bomb and a suitable delivery system, would it have been acceptable for the axis powers to have detonated a bomb over New York and another over Detroit in order to shorten the war and to minimise casualties overall?

Ta,
Norris

OldMan____
05-19-2005, 12:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
I'll ask the same hypothetical question that I always ask when this topic crops up.

Assuming that you think it's acceptable to detonate nuclear devices on chiefly civilian targets, and that the axis had developed an atomic bomb and a suitable delivery system, would it have been acceptable for the axis powers to have detonated a bomb over New York and another over Detroit in order to shorten the war and to minimise casualties overall?

Ta,
Norris </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly! That is why I started this saying that guilt is subjective.



And horseback I did not said our schollar had the absolute true, but only that we had a different report of fact then the one that arrived at american population. Be sure, none of the 2 are absolute true.

Abbuzze
05-19-2005, 12:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

..... If you beleive this, then you must ask yourself why the US made another surrender call t Japan one week before droppingthe first bomb. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To have the possibility to ask this question?

But I have to admit this simplyfys it to much!

All this different causes, Okinawa with the number of casualities- If I read such calculations, of so much percent of... I allways starting to think if 35% are to much... would be 17% ok and dropping the bomb not choosen??
Thats the cause why I think such things are allways a kind of alibi. The bomb would be dropped even without Okinawa or with 5% casualities!

And to say it loud and clear, every nation in this situation had probably did the same!
But the USAAF did it.

The Idea behind the bomb was to show that Japan has no alternative than surrender or being wiped from the maps, it was also clear that it was more a question of time till the surrender.


BUT, the interessting question is, was the 2nd Bomb necessary?? And was it necessary to drop it 3 days later? No time to wait a week after years of war?
If the 1st bomb was an succsess not only the town would be total destroyed, also communication equipment, I would assume it would also take some time till the japanese realize what hit them.
Just 3 days, I would take Tall Boy as a military necessarity, but Fat Man?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:

The Germans refrained from chemical biological warfare because they knew the Allies would respond in kind, and that would create no advantage for them.

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It changes nothing, but it was more the experiances Hitler of gasattacks in the WWI, which let him stay away from this.
Beside it was Churchill who thought about chemical attacks, but he also feard a counterstrike, most families didn´t had their gasmasks anymore, that they get at the begining of the war and it would take to long and need to much resources to build new one, and it would also to eye-catching for spys if new masks will be started to produced... Also remember the antrax islands, they didn´t made this test for fun, but a biohazard country is hard to occupy.

lrrp22
05-19-2005, 12:47 PM
Considering the fact that the Axis powers were the aggressors, and that every action they took in order to achieve victory was unjustifiable, the answer is obviously NO.

If an armed intruder enters your home with burglery/murder on their mind, is the intruder justified in killing you in order to more easily steal your possesions? Are you justified in using deadly force to protect yourself?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
I'll ask the same hypothetical question that I always ask when this topic crops up.

Assuming that you think it's acceptable to detonate nuclear devices on chiefly civilian targets, and that the axis had developed an atomic bomb and a suitable delivery system, would it have been acceptable for the axis powers to have detonated a bomb over New York and another over Detroit in order to shorten the war and to minimise casualties overall?

Ta,
Norris </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

JG27_Stacko
05-19-2005, 12:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DarthBane_:

You mean the rewritten, edited winners history? There are no bigger liars than those who write about how they won. The pathetic battle results of the side you represent gave tham the reason to represent amero eqipment and guns as great while in RL they were pathetic. With numbers, not skill they swarmed the skies of Europe bombing and killing more than 500 000 civilian population. The white headed eagle from your avatar is raw fish eater and the biggest sissy among eagles. Apropriate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm. Actually the american pilot had three times the amount of training that LW pilots were having in 1943, this figure just grew and grew by wars end. LW pilots had to have there training completed in front-line battle conditions, yet there life expectancy was less than a few sorties - ie not enough time to even recieve this training. So while qauntity was no doubt a huge factor in actual fact there was a qaulitative supieriority on behalf of the Americans as well in terms of both men(training) and equipment. My figures come from Adolf Gallands "The first and the Last" - whats your source for these vile claims that you make?

Oh and as for the 500,000 people thing - rememeber Coventry?

Blutarski2004
05-19-2005, 01:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Abbuzze:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

..... If you beleive this, then you must ask yourself why the US made another surrender call t Japan one week before droppingthe first bomb. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To have the possibility to ask this question?
But I have to admit this simplyfys it to much!

..... I don't think that it simplifies the issue. Many critics claim that the USA always intended to drop the A-Bombs for all sorts of cynical reasons - to impress the Soviets, etc. If so, why give the Japanese a one week chance to surrender?



All this different causes, Okinawa with the number of casualities- If I read such calculations, of so much percent of... I allways starting to think if 35% are to much... would be 17% ok and dropping the bomb not choosen??
Thats the cause why I think such things are allways a kind of alibi. The bomb would be dropped even without Okinawa or with 5% casualities!

..... Forgive me for saying, but what you suggest about the US attitude if their Okinawa losses had been 17 pct or 5 pct is simply theoretical speculation. After fighting from island to island across the Pacific for three years, the US had learned very well the cost of such operations.



And to say it loud and clear, every nation in this situation had probably did the same!
But the USAAF did it.

..... I agree. But I do not see it as a crime, which has been suggested here.



The Idea behind the bomb was to show that Japan has no alternative than surrender or being wiped from the maps, it was also clear that it was more a question of time till the surrender.

..... I again agree. But to say that surrender was simply a question of time, one must also ask at what cost in lives and treasure. The US had no way to know at what point the military dictatorship of Japan would finally give up. As in my earlier post, what if the US had simply blockaded the island and caused one or two million Japanese to starve to death?


BUT, the interessting question is, was the 2nd Bomb necessary?? And was it necessary to drop it 3 days later? No time to wait a week after years of war?
If the 1st bomb was an succsess not only the town would be total destroyed, also communication equipment, I would assume it would also take some time till the japanese realize what hit them.
Just 3 days, I would take Tall Boy as a military necessarity, but Fat Man?

..... The Japanese leadership knew immediately that Hiroshima had been destroyed because the US made a worldwide public announcement on 6 August. The time line of the last weeks before the Japanese surrender are instructive -

6 August - Hiroshima atomic bomb attack.

8 August - Declaration of War by Russia and
beginning of Manchurian Offensive.

9 August - Nagasaki atomic bomb attack.

10 August - The Japanese government announced its readiness to accept the joint American-British "unconditional surrender" declaration of Potsdam, "with the understanding that the said declaration does not compromise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign Ruler." - i.e., not an unconditional surrender offer.

11 August - The Americans issue a reply, which included these words: "From the moment of surrender the authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the State shall be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers."

14 August - Japan finally surrenders after several further days of political infighting between the militarists and the civilian members of Japanese government and a failed attempt to assassinate Emperor Hirohito.

So Japan actually did not surrender until the dropping of two atomic bombs AND the crushing Soviet Manchurian offensive.



It was more the experiances Hitler of gas attacks in the WWI, which let him stay away from this.
Beside it was Churchill who thought about chemical attacks, but he also feard a counterstrike, most families didn´t had their gasmasks anymore, that they get at the begining of the war and it would take to long and need to much resources to build new one, and it would also to eye-catching for spys if new masks will be started to produced... Also remember the antrax islands, they didn´t made this test for fun, but a biohazard country is hard to occupy.

..... The general historical viewpoint is that none of the warring WW2 nations practiced chemical or biological warfare because all of them feared retaliation in kind. Germany also avoided it because most of its army transport was by horses, which were especially vulnerable to such weapons.

Abbuzze
05-19-2005, 03:02 PM
To have the possibility to ask this question?
But I have to admit this simplyfys it to much!

..... I don't think that it simplifies the issue. Many critics claim that the USA always intended to drop the A-Bombs for all sorts of cynical reasons - to impress the Soviets, etc. If so, why give the Japanese a one week chance to surrender?
---------
I don´t think that the USA military/government had this cynical reasons. Why four more days? An unconditional surrender is no easy thing even in this situation. If Japan surrender at the 5th day that would save a lot of lives... if not, the destruction is the same.



All this different causes, Okinawa with the number of casualities- If I read such calculations, of so much percent of... I allways starting to think if 35% are to much... would be 17% ok and dropping the bomb not choosen??
Thats the cause why I think such things are allways a kind of alibi. The bomb would be dropped even without Okinawa or with 5% casualities!

..... Forgive me for saying, but what you suggest about the US attitude if their Okinawa losses had been 17 pct or 5 pct is simply theoretical speculation. After fighting from island to island across the Pacific for three years, the US had learned very well the cost of such operations.
---------
I agree, it´s theoretical, but I just want to point out that this doesn´t matter for the decission to drop the bomb.
Same for japanese warcrimes, they are awfull, but even without them, japan would be hit by a nuclear strike.
US-Army saw the possibility to end the war and used it. This would happen even if they lost just 5pct...

And to say it loud and clear, every nation in this situation had probably did the same!
But the USAAF did it.

..... I agree. But I do not see it as a crime, which has been suggested here.
---------
You are right, but I see it as a row of Guernica, Warszaw, Coventry, London, Lübeck, the Beadecker-Attacks, Hamburg, K¶ln, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki every attack of this a kind of crime - no of them are worse, noone better than the others... thats what I want to say.


The Idea behind the bomb was to show that Japan has no alternative than surrender or being wiped from the maps, it was also clear that it was more a question of time till the surrender.

..... I again agree. But to say that surrender was simply a question of time, one must also ask at what cost in lives and treasure. The US had no way to know at what point the military dictatorship of Japan would finally give up. As in my earlier post, what if the US had simply blockaded the island and caused one or two million Japanese to starve to death?

Yes a blockaded island would not be a solution, that´s no question, that was also a problem after WW1 when the german Army retreated and the conservative parties created the "Dolchstoßlegende - stab in the back legend" the german army unbeaten at the battlefield but killed from behind by the democratic forces. A similar thing could of course happens with the traditional forces in japan. Maybe even worse than 2 million people starving...
But for the 2nd bomb, I still think that is was not necessary after the 1st and the Manchurian attack maybe tha announcement of a 2nd one would be enough - But this is theoretical and my personal opinion.

Blutarski2004
05-19-2005, 03:10 PM
I've pretty much said all I can say about this A-Bomb issue. Thank you, Oldman and Abbuzze, for a very polite and informative discussion about such a delicate subject. And no one set his hair on fire and went crazy - always a little miracle here on the Ubi Forum.

Maybe someday we can meet face to face and have a drink together. I would like to do that.

Abbuzze
05-19-2005, 03:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

Maybe someday we can meet face to face and have a drink together. I would like to do that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice idea! I would enjoy it!

Agreeing to that what you say about this thread, learnd a lot... and changed my mind a bit in some points.

NorrisMcWhirter
05-19-2005, 06:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
Considering the fact that the Axis powers were the aggressors, and that every action they took in order to achieve victory was unjustifiable, the answer is obviously NO.

If an armed intruder enters your home with burglery/murder on their mind, is the intruder justified in killing you in order to more easily steal your possesions? Are you justified in using deadly force to protect yourself?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
I'll ask the same hypothetical question that I always ask when this topic crops up.

Assuming that you think it's acceptable to detonate nuclear devices on chiefly civilian targets, and that the axis had developed an atomic bomb and a suitable delivery system, would it have been acceptable for the axis powers to have detonated a bomb over New York and another over Detroit in order to shorten the war and to minimise casualties overall?

Ta,
Norris </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are entitled to defend yourself, of course. But it's not really the situation....

How about if someone was about to kill me in my home but failed because they were stopped...or, actually killed a member of my family.

Would you consider it acceptable for me to then go to their house and wipe out a chunk of their family with a machine gun because of what the burglar did?

Alternatively, how about if an Iraqi soldier had detonated a nuclear device in Washington following the US-led coalition invading Iraq a couple of years ago? On the basis that the allies were the aggressor in that respect, does this make it acceptable?

Ta,
Norris

lrrp22
05-19-2005, 10:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:

You are entitled to defend yourself, of course. But it's not really the situation....

How about if someone was about to kill me in my home but failed because they were stopped...or, actually killed a member of my family.

Would you consider it acceptable for me to then go to their house and wipe out a chunk of their family with a machine gun because of what the burglar did?

Alternatively, how about if an Iraqi soldier had detonated a nuclear device in Washington following the US-led coalition invading Iraq a couple of years ago? On the basis that the allies were the aggressor in that respect, does this make it acceptable?

Ta,
Norris </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think a more apt analogy would be if that same intruder had killed numerous members of my family and many of my neighbors, and had continued to rape, kidnap and kill more of my friends and family. In that instance, I would be a fool if I did not attempt to follow him to his home and kill him. If killing him was impossible without killing some other members of his family, it would force a lesser of two evils response.

As for Iraq, the context and scale are vastly different. I am not at all convinced that we have any right to be there (but then neither did Saddam- a serial aggressor himself), but the fact is- right, wrong or indifferent- only the most obtuse would compare that conflict to the genocidal attempts of the Axis powers to enslave entire continents.

NorrisMcWhirter
05-20-2005, 08:11 AM
Hi,

I'm not sure any of the burglar analogies are suitable because lawlessness on the scale suggested should have been sorted out by the authorities long before it came down to revenge killings. I do have another burglar analogy, though, but I don't see that it'll get us anywhere.

In terms of Iraq, I don't think it's at all obtuse to compare the conflicts. For argument's sake, there are plenty of muslims in the middle east who (and I'll paraphrase) see the US purely as the serial aggressor, responsible for the deaths of many of their own people and who are trying to impose (enslave) their people with an alien ideology of 'decadent, Godless, democratic freedom'. Not only that but a power that has been known to hold prisoners of war, sorry, 'illegal combatants' in conditions which 'bend the rules' somewhat; the only key difference is that the US haven't been committing genocide.

As always, it's simply a matter of which side of the fence you sit on.

Now, if I were a muslim holding those views and who used your logic of justification, it would be acceptable for me to do what was suggested.

I don't hold those views and, even if I did, I wouldn't see it justifiable to attack the civilain targets regardless.

I never agreed with the allies/bomber Harris' terror campaign on the continent, either, regardless of whether Germany 'started it' or not with attacking Coventry (besides, Coventry was a military target whereas Dresden, patently, was not). Bad things happen in war, yes, but just because someone does something doesn't mean that you can go off primarily vapourising/burning civilians. Not in my book, anyway.

Cheers,
Norris

lrrp22
05-20-2005, 10:05 AM
Norris,

I agree that we are stretching the burgler analogies a bit! I must say though, that my previous example was intended to portray the wanton lawlessness of the Axis campaigns and the fact that there were no 'authorities' to notify.

I also agree that perspective determines everything with regards to Iraq. It pains me that many in my government seem to have no more sophisticated a view of that region and its problems than many of the people who live there.

As for Arthur Harris' bomber campaign and the Atom Bombs, I don't think that we, in 2005, have the necessary perspective to understand the decisions that an environment of Total War seemed to require. I think the point of view sometimes expressed here that all lives, friendly or enemy, are equally valuable would have been considered laughable, if not traitorous, during the war.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Hi,

I'm not sure any of the burglar analogies are suitable because lawlessness on the scale suggested should have been sorted out by the authorities long before it came down to revenge killings. I do have another burglar analogy, though, but I don't see that it'll get us anywhere.

In terms of Iraq, I don't think it's at all obtuse to compare the conflicts. For argument's sake, there are plenty of muslims in the middle east who (and I'll paraphrase) see the US purely as the serial aggressor, responsible for the deaths of many of their own people and who are trying to impose (enslave) their people with an alien ideology of 'decadent, Godless, democratic freedom'. Not only that but a power that has been known to hold prisoners of war, sorry, 'illegal combatants' in conditions which 'bend the rules' somewhat; the only key difference is that the US haven't been committing genocide.

As always, it's simply a matter of which side of the fence you sit on.

Now, if I were a muslim holding those views and who used your logic of justification, it would be acceptable for me to do what was suggested.

I don't hold those views and, even if I did, I wouldn't see it justifiable to attack the civilain targets regardless.

I never agreed with the allies/bomber Harris' terror campaign on the continent, either, regardless of whether Germany 'started it' or not with attacking Coventry (besides, Coventry was a military target whereas Dresden, patently, was not). Bad things happen in war, yes, but just because someone does something doesn't mean that you can go off primarily vapourising/burning civilians. Not in my book, anyway.

Cheers,
Norris </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kapteeni
05-20-2005, 12:42 PM
Most of the german aces used sort of wolfpack tacticts.The others chased enemy planes to the gunsights of the best shooter and then he finnished them within wery close range. And also cover him. Good tactics!

BaronUnderpants
05-20-2005, 03:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Estimated being the key word here.....do u seriosly belive that? 10 times more than total casualties of US troops during the entire war! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

quote:

Ten times? Approximately 408,000 U.S. troops were killed during the Second World War.

Oops...lol, sorry i mixed up WW2 with Vietnam.

My bad.

Blutarski2004
05-20-2005, 08:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
I never agreed with the allies/bomber Harris' terror campaign on the continent, either, regardless of whether Germany 'started it' or not with attacking Coventry (besides, Coventry was a military target whereas Dresden, patently, was not). Bad things happen in war, yes, but just because someone does something doesn't mean that you can go off primarily vapourising/burning civilians. Not in my book, anyway.

Cheers,
Norris </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... I suggest that the leadership of Arthur Harris musy be viewed in the context of his times. Great Britain had invested huge inter-war sums to build a strategic bombing force, basically betting on the validity and efficacy of Douhet's theory of strategic bombing as an alternative to the bloody excesses of WW1. Douhet's argument was fundamentally that strategic bombing would be a panacea to bring future wars to a rapid and relatively less costly conclusion by attacking and crushing the national will of the enemy to continue fighting. This included the notion of attacking enemy cities and their populations, (a) under the rationale that war industry factory workers were legitimate targets under the new concept of nationa-states at war, and (b) in the expectation that the demoralization through aerial bombing of the civilian population would cause domestic political unrest sufficient to force a quick end to the war.

Douhet's theory was, of course, proved largely wrong. But Harris doggedly spent four years trying to make the theory come true. His staff were always utterly confient that they werejust around the corner from breaking the Huns. They were wrong.

It became apparent quite soon after the start of the war that the anticipated ability of Bomber Command to accurately strike military targets was entirely illusory. IMO, Harris's embrace of indiscriminate bombing of German cities was simply a response to the realization that that was about all that Bomber Command could be expected to accomplish under the prevailing conditions. And polticially speaking, I think that Harris persisted upon this course of action as a means to justify the existence and mission and status of Bomber Command.
Dresden was every bit as much a military target as any other German industrial city. It was a center of production of precision instruments (navigation devices, bombsights, reconaaisaance cameras, optical sights, etc; it was also the rail and transportation gateway for all supplies and forces transiting between Germany and the East. One of the reasons for actually targeting Dresden was in response to a Russian request to disrupt German supplies flowing through to their front. Do read Frederick Taylor's book on the Dresden raid. It is most illuminating.

NorrisMcWhirter
05-21-2005, 03:39 AM
Hi,

iirp22: I agree that it's hard to understand but, in my view, the only way to stop a lot of conflict (or, more specifically, genocide etc) is for people to have a view that all people are equal. Oh, what an utopian expectation!

Or maybe not...some people did actually practice such an idea in the war where they actually treated prisoners with respect, not just because of legal conventions. Or, Churchill's disgust at the Dresden raid which he described as "terror and wanton destruction" and his questioning of it as a target.

On the subject of Dresden, information I've read on it suggested that it housed some targets of minor military value but nothing on the scale, say, of Coventry's engineering works; more that it was being used a large scale hosptial. I also find it odd that someone would choose to 'disrupt an enemy supply line' by dropping incendiaries on a city. I'll check this book out, though...I'm in luck, for once, as they have a copy in the local library!

Cheers,
Norris

CM: 940.542132142