StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Simplicius wrote: I find it difficult to believe that people can honestly claim that the incendiary raids were not targeting cities. The munitions used were picked explicitly because fire and wood-and-paper construction do not mix well; the raids were area-effect from the get go, with the target areas being many square miles in size; and the raids' planners knew that even legitimate industrial targets - never mind the nebulous 'civilian morale' - were widely dispersed. The entire purpose of the firebombing was to destroy the largest swaths of area possible. How is that not targeting cities?

I would be surprised if anyhing more than a small minority would disagree with your views. For my part, I think that is LeMay had PGMs he would have been less inclined to toast cities by the bushel. I suspect that most carpet bombing came out of the inability to hit anything worth a damn.

That NOS Guy wrote:Surlethe, the firebombing strategy actually wasn't the first go at it. It was selected for a few reasons actually. First and foremost you could not bomb with any accuracy from high altitude with HE. The natural wind patterns really, really, really fucked with accuracy. They tried the European approach first. It failed.

Second, and most important IMHO, was because the Japanese cities themselves were pretty much one big factory. The breakdown of Japanese industry relied heavilly on a lot of small sub-contractors. Sub-contrators spread throughout the cities in small businesses. More to the point, what's the best way to destroy a lot small targets in wooden cities? I think you know the answer there.

It wasn't to explictly kill civilians. They just happened to be in a very unfortunate spot, and American high command was not going to allow the enemy to use it's civilian populace as it's human shield. Especially if it would cost many more American lives if they didn't take the action they did.

Or so that's my understanding.

I don't disagree with your understanding per se. In fact, it supports my contention that the US high command targeted cities explicitly rather than as accessories to purely military targets. I've not actually been saying the point of the US bombing campaigns were to explicitly kill civilians, but only that the cities themselves were the targets.

That was, of course, the point of correcting Shep from "living near military targets" to "living in Japanese cities".

*punts to OT*

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

General Schatten wrote:

Surlethe wrote:

MKSheppard wrote:As for the hiroshima victims; sucks to be you; but that's what you get for living in a Japanese city in wartime.

Fixed for accuracy.

From the 1946 Strategic Bombing Survey report on bombings:
Hiroshima before the war was the seventh largest city in Japan, with a population of over 340,000, and was the principal administrative and commercial center of the southwestern part of the country. As the headquarters of the Second Army and of the Chugoku Regional Army, it was one of the most important military command stations in Japan, the site of one of the largest military supply depots, and the foremost military shipping point for both troops and supplies.

Which is why the bomb was dropped over a bridge placed centrally over the commercial center of the city, and not the military depots or Army HQ?

Surlethe wrote: I don't disagree with your understanding per se. In fact, it supports my contention that the US high command targeted cities explicitly rather than as accessories to purely military targets. I've not actually been saying the point of the US bombing campaigns were to explicitly kill civilians, but only that the cities themselves were the targets.

Of course, I was merely going into some of the military rationale for targetting cities en masse. As Simplicitus pointed out the object to destroy the enemies morale and production I thought I'd expand onto why the strategy was changed from attempted pinpoint strikes to city leveling as there was indeed an overriding concern as to how best to remove Japanese industry from the face of the Earth.

Surlethe wrote: That was, of course, the point of correcting Shep from "living near military targets" to "living in Japanese cities".

I think you're about half-right there. I'd still change it to "living near industrial targets". After all, they didn't bomb Edo IIRC.

That NOS Guy wrote:Of course, I was merely going into some of the military rationale for targetting cities en masse. As Simplicitus pointed out the object to destroy the enemies morale and production I thought I'd expand onto why the strategy was changed from attempted pinpoint strikes to city leveling as there was indeed an overriding concern as to how best to remove Japanese industry from the face of the Earth.

Yes, that makes sense. There was also the concern of weather; LeMay's "Empire Strategy" dictated that if weather was good, the raids would be diurnal high-altitude HE bombing, while if the weather was bad, the raids would be nocturnal incendiary bombing.

Toward the end of the war, LeMay actually started dropping leaflets on cities about to be firebombed -- such regard for human life!

Surlethe wrote:That was, of course, the point of correcting Shep from "living near military targets" to "living in Japanese cities".

I think you're about half-right there. I'd still change it to "living near industrial targets". After all, they didn't bomb Edo IIRC.

Um, Edo = Tokyo, which was firebombed. If you're talking about Kyoto, AFAIK it was considered the number one target for nuclear bombing and removed from the list only because SecWar Stimson did not want it damaged. (Stimson's diary)

Surlethe wrote: Yes, that makes sense. There was also the concern of weather; LeMay's "Empire Strategy" dictated that if weather was good, the raids would be diurnal high-altitude HE bombing, while if the weather was bad, the raids would be nocturnal incendiary bombing.

As I pointed towards with my initial post. The problem is that weather in Japan is often very bad for high-altitude bombing, specifically the winds in the upper atmosphere (due to that whole jet stream thing).

Surlethe wrote: Toward the end of the war, LeMay actually started dropping leaflets on cities about to be firebombed -- such regard for human life!

Better then what they gave the Chinese at Shanghi

Surlethe wrote: Um, Edo = Tokyo, which was firebombed. If you're talking about Kyoto, AFAIK it was considered the number one target for nuclear bombing and removed from the list only because SecWar Stimson did not want it damaged. (Stimson's diary)

Err, yeah. Sometimes posting on the fly at work leads to some mixups

That and it's entirely conceivable that the no. 1 selection was due to the perceived need to crack Japanese morale. By the time the decesion to drop the bomb was made people were eager to end the war and fuck history. It was also one of the very few cities left too, and you gotta nuke something.

Of course, the bombing of a largely cultural target is of highly dubious morality.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Which is why the bomb was dropped over a bridge placed centrally over the commercial center of the city, and not the military depots or Army HQ?

The bridge was the aimpoint because it showed up quite distinctively on both visual AND radar bombing modes.

MKSheppard wrote:

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Which is why the bomb was dropped over a bridge placed centrally over the commercial center of the city, and not the military depots or Army HQ?

The bridge was the aimpoint because it showed up quite distinctively on both visual AND radar bombing modes.

Don't bullshit me, Shep. You know just as well as I do that bombing of industrial and military targets was explicitly done as a matter of course throughout the war, and the aiming difficulties in this case would be more easily negated by the yield of the device. The bridge was centrally placed over the civilian city center, and we both know it was not bombed for the purpose of destroying the military HQ or the marshaling yards or storage depots. They wanted to see the results of an atomic city strike.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:

MKSheppard wrote:

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Which is why the bomb was dropped over a bridge placed centrally over the commercial center of the city, and not the military depots or Army HQ?

The bridge was the aimpoint because it showed up quite distinctively on both visual AND radar bombing modes.

Don't bullshit me, Shep. You know just as well as I do that bombing of industrial and military targets was explicitly done as a matter of course throughout the war, and the aiming difficulties in this case would be more easily negated by the yield of the device. The bridge was centrally placed over the civilian city center, and we both know it was not bombed for the purpose of destroying the military HQ or the marshaling yards or storage depots. They wanted to see the results of an atomic city strike.

And your point is? Other than Shep and a few other nutcases, nobody denies that that the American bombing campaign against Japan targeted civilians. So fucking what?

I agree with fgalkin here, the Japanese were only totally crushed when their East Asia co-Prosperity Sphere collapsed with the Kwantung Army.

As for the A-bomb demonstration, it was not only for Japan, but also to scare the USSR. As far as I know, Truman made an attempt to impress and scare Stalin with "the bomb" when he went to the Yalta conference.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Don't bullshit me, Shep.

Every serious history of the atomic bombings mentions that the bridge was chosen as the aimpoint because of it's distinctiveness; being an easily identifiable landmark.

Sweeney's crew got a major asschewing over Nagasaki; because after the primary was clouded over, they proceeded to Nagasaki, and dropped through a momentary break in the clouds; completely missing their aimpoint by 2 miles; and causing the bomb to be significantly weaker; since the new hypocenter caused much of the blast to be contained by surrounding valleys.

It's no wonder Tibbets decided to fly the Third mission himself.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:and we both know it was not bombed for the purpose of destroying the military HQ or the marshaling yards or storage depots. They wanted to see the results of an atomic city strike.

If they wanted to see that, why didn't we just bomb some random city. There were plenty of those in Japan.

I believe these same generals were supporting the idea of bombing just about anything "night and day" so as to ensure the "poor bastards" weren't getting any sleep.

If anything, Dresden was so saturated with weapons I find it hard to believe they merely bombed it for military potential. The entire city centre was leveled.

Quite frankly, anyone who has noble ideals about the war is either delusional or ignoring the facts that the entire war was really about brutalising the enemy into submission.

Ace Pace wrote:

General Schatten wrote:

Surlethe wrote:So an enemy capital city is now a military target?

That's where the guy who gives the order is.

Offensive operations explicetly did not target Japanese high command, and avoided hitting the ceremonial palaces where most business was conducted.

You want to leave someone around who can surrender, so the supreme command in any country is almost never targeted. We tried it in Iraq in 2003 and looked how much that fucked us up. If we could have traded a nice Riveria exile for Saddam and his sons for comprehensive information on every weapons cache in the country and an order for his supporters to stand down, we might have gotten control of the country.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:You want to leave someone around who can surrender, so the supreme command in any country is almost never targeted. We tried it in Iraq in 2003 and looked how much that fucked us up. If we could have traded a nice Riveria exile for Saddam and his sons for comprehensive information on every weapons cache in the country and an order for his supporters to stand down, we might have gotten control of the country.

Unlikely. The prinicpal causes of trouble for the occupation are groups that are probably as happy to see Saddam gone as the US is.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:If anything, Dresden was so saturated with weapons I find it hard to believe they merely bombed it for military potential. The entire city centre was leveled.

Dredsden was chock full of targets.

1.) Major rail marshalling center, being a linchpin of Germany's eastern defensive system by dint of logistical reasons.

2.) Full of war industries.

MKSheppard wrote:

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:If anything, Dresden was so saturated with weapons I find it hard to believe they merely bombed it for military potential. The entire city centre was leveled.

Dredsden was chock full of targets.

1.) Major rail marshalling center, being a linchpin of Germany's eastern defensive system by dint of logistical reasons.

2.) Full of war industries.

All good and well (although I note that you are relying on your own authority), but are you trying to support the notion that Dresden was bombed only because of its military value to the enemy?

Surlethe wrote:All good and well (although I note that you are relying on your own authority)

You mean the USSBS?

but are you trying to support the notion that Dresden was bombed only because of its military value to the enemy?

Arthur Harris didn't one day wake up and say:

"Gee, I'm all bored; lets go burn a city off the face of the earth and kill a lot of people for the hell of it."

The reason that the city centers were bombed was quite simple:



See that outer ring? That's 3 miles from the city center.

MKSheppard wrote:Every serious history of the atomic bombings mentions that the bridge was chosen as the aimpoint because of it's distinctiveness; being an easily identifiable landmark.

To reinforce this further:



Here's a photograph of a typical World War II Airborne radar set; the H2S.

You can see how you can't make much out of the urban area except a mass of white; but non-reflective water obstacles like rivers, lakes etc show up nice, and in conjunction with a structure stretching across the water; like a dam or bridge:

SancheztheWhaler wrote:
And your point is? Other than Shep and a few other nutcases, nobody denies that that the American bombing campaign against Japan targeted civilians. So fucking what?

Well I am replying to the nutcase, so my point is his assertion is intellectually dishonest and we deliberately targeted civilians. What is your point? To assert I have no business refuting Sheppard's bullshit? I chose my argument, don't shoehorn me into stuff I didn't say. I don't really need your direction.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:

SancheztheWhaler wrote:
And your point is? Other than Shep and a few other nutcases, nobody denies that that the American bombing campaign against Japan targeted civilians. So fucking what?

Well I am replying to the nutcase, so my point is his assertion is intellectually dishonest and we deliberately targeted civilians. What is your point? To assert I have no business refuting Sheppard's bullshit? I chose my argument, don't shoehorn me into stuff I didn't say. I don't really need your direction.

You don't have a fucking argument retard. You created a strawman of a few of Sheps statements, but as I re-read his posts in this thread, I don't see one post where he says the US did NOT target civilians. He merely says that they targeted military installations in Hiroshima without addressing the issue of civilians.

If you're going to get into a pissing match with Shep, at least be sure he made the statement you're getting pissy about.

Surlethe wrote: Mm-hmm? Are you saying that the US only bombed cities to get at the military targets nearby?

Not nearby, the military targets were strewn thought-out the cities. The US tried precision bombing of Japans industry for months, it didn’t work. The reason is that Japan had highly distributed industry, as did Britain. The big factory buildings only did final assembly, they depended on components coming from thousands of small plants and individual workshops strewn throughout residential areas. Smash the big building and you accomplish very little, the roof falls down and the place is back in action the next day. Burn down a city and you’ve crippled a big segment of production, killing the inhabitants was never a goal, and in fact it was beneficial if they became refuges. Refuges are a bigger economic problem then dead bodies. Huge numbers of civilians did die, but that was not the main objective and would have been seen as a waste of bombs.

The German economy, like that of the US and USSR, was much more strongly based around factories that made everything a product needed, and so area bombing of German cities was proportionally far less effective in terms of direct destruction. It was however very effective in drawing off a huge fraction of the German war effort into manning air defenses.

And since everyone always takes fucking time to lament over the dead of Hiroshima, how about a moment to remember the 60,000 Chinese casualties inflicted by the Japanese bombing of Chongqing from 1938-1942 (raids after 42 were sporadic). Chinese losses were not heavier only because, with the memory of Shanghai still fresh, an extensive program of bomb shelter and firebreak construction was implemented.

From the moment the Japanese first had an airfield within range of the city they began attacking with steadily increasing strength. In the space of May to September of that year the Japanese Navy mounted no less then 182 separate day and night raids on the city, every single one of them a maximum effort with every available aircraft. Incendiary bombs were used extensively as part of an effort to burn the city to the ground, but the pathetic payloads of IJN bombers prevented them from unleashing a firestorm on a city with hardly a single modern fire engine.

Silly Great Leader. It doesn't matter because you can't pin a date on it. It's like the slogan rule for debates, adapted to history.