SsgtC
Banned
Argentina maybe?Nope, just the usual goings-on here. We are in an alternate world where the USA is squaring off against a Nazi-style Brazil. Which begs a question, who got to to play the part of France?
Argentina maybe?Nope, just the usual goings-on here. We are in an alternate world where the USA is squaring off against a Nazi-style Brazil. Which begs a question, who got to to play the part of France?
The Japanese were indeed very much hoping (for reasons that are somewhat fuzzy, given the history of Soviet/Japanese relations) that Uncle Joe & Company would act as an intermediary with the Allies and push for a favorable solution. That was why the Soviet entry into the War was even more jarring than would otherwise have been the case. Not only was the Red Army manhandling the Kwantung Army, but the hoped for favorable broker had not only failed to appear, but was actively killing IJA personnel en masse.The Japanese senior military (this includes the emperor) was in a state of denial. Maybe the Manchurian shock brought them to reality, or maybe not. I doubt it. Here is why.
I do not subscribe to the Russian theory, simply because the Japanese used the Russians as their conduit to the Americans starting in July 45. Note that their ambassador in Moscow (the Americans had broken into Russian and Japanese diplomatic traffic.) told the Tokyo regime that the Russians were not sending true messages to the Americans and were not reliable intermediaries. Yet the Japanese persisted. Then that poor gentlemen, Kantaro Suzuki, used an unfortunate kanji; Mokusatsu, when he was asked about the Potsdam Declaration. That was it as far as the Americans were concerned. Russians or no Russians it would be war to the knife. There was intense debate about whether to demonstrate the atomic bombs or use them in certain American quarters. I'm not sure modern Americans understand what the debate was about. It was a question of basically three things...
1. America's economy was finally at the breaking point. The money, the resources, the manpower was at its limit.
2. The Navy way would kill 10 million or more Japanese and take 18 months. With Japan so destroyed; it could very well degenerate into a repeat of 1880s east Asia only with 20th century weapons. WW II up until 1945 had been bad enough. Imagine another 35-40 million killed as civil war in China and violent de-colonization erupts all through the Western Pacific as the Japanese lose policing power before the Allies can get in to maintain some order? THAT was what Suzuki was worried about.
3. Russian American clash. The prize; Japan. Truman was afraid of that outcome. The bomb was his declaration to Moscow; "Hands off."
As an addendum; the Army way would have killed about 4-6 million Japanese and taken about 12-16 months. The Russians would have tried for Hokkaido and screwed it up and screamed for American help. Or if they were smart, they would have chewed on Manchuria and Korea and laughed as the Americans bled out hundreds of thousands of dead and made themselves infamous as butchers in East Asia. Did one know that just to make the landings on Kyushu, the Americans were prepared to use "special munitions" in Ford manufactured copies of German V-1 buzz bombs? In other words, the Americans were prepared to break treaties and international conventions just to get ashore? That is how savage the end game was. Russians were irrelevant and the Japanese certainly knew it. It was the Americans coming for them, not Moscow.
Finally: the Japanese estimated the US had two bombs (6 assemblies waiting on Hanford plutonium). The next American strikes would be on the Kanto plain. One knows what that means? The Japanese quit. Nagasaki was enough. Hirohito said so.
which plane would have been better to attack Mucho Grande
How much faster and higher flying was B-29 compared to B-17?
That depends on how clean each plane was. And at what altitude.
B-17 was about 128 m/s (~460 km/hr.) at 6,000 m nominal maxed out. Service ceiling was just above 11,000 m or above 35,000 ft.
B-29 was about 158 m/s (~570 km/hr.) at 6,300 m nominal maxed out. Service ceiling was about 9,700 meters or just under 32,000 ft.
Was the B-29 @ 350ph that much harder to intercept, than the B-17 @ 284 mph?
I don't see the desperate need?
B-17 with a higher ceiling than a B-29 ? I have a hard time believing that...
It comes down to bomb load. The B-17 was a 1600 km mission to Berlin from east Anglia bomber that could carry 1.7 tonnes of bombs.
The B-39 was a 2500 km Marianas Islands to Tokyo mission capable bird that could carry about 9-11 tonnes of bombs depending on whether it flew Low Medium High or Low High Low and whether the guns were stripped out for fuel and bombs. Plus it could carry Fat Man if shackled right.
Note that a Lancaster was a 4 tonne bomb-load mission to Berlin bomber? From Okinawa it would have been a good add-on to American efforts.
Looks like Lanc I and III were good for 6350 kg (14000 lbs) on 1660 mile trip - to Berlin and back no problems. link
Fortress III (B-17G) was good for 1600 miles trip with 4540 kg bom load.
Let's see if we are reading that table the same way? When I read range, at 14.000 lbs I expect to see the number for miles endurance at cruise. 1660 miles/2 is 830 radius. Berlin from East Anglia is about what? Something like 940 miles?
Sorry, going metric on you here (~ 200 mph cruise =90 m/s) 10 hours being a typical mission : 3,240 km mission endurance/2= 1620 kilometers one way. It's looking more like 10,000 lbs or 4536 kg to me.
And that is with no 10% fuel reserve.
You cannot trust the internet to give you the right numbers sometimes. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And it keeps me mind agile to check it.
You're going to need boots on the ground to take Rio, Sao Paulo and Brasilia.