What would be the best way for a B-29 to drop a nuke in contested airspace?

[DougM]

As for “historical documentation” and Archeological discoveries, they like anything can often be interpreted in whatever way the person doing the interpretation wants.

let me tell you an old joke about that

While digging a Hole in New York workers found an old pice of copper wire and called in an Archeologist and an Historian after examining the wire and the depth it was found at the Team announced that it was a Telephone cable and that NY had telephones in the Late 1800s.
Shortly after that a team in LA discovered a data cable and announced that LA had internet in the Lat 1800.
not to be outdown, Bubba a Farmer and amature Archeologist and Historian was out in the back forty digging a deep hole and found absolutly NOTHING. The next Day he announced that Hazard Georgia was using Wireless internet in the late 1800s.

 

[CalBear]

I don’t see atomic bombs as something special. The conventional bombing of German and Japanese cities resulted on the deaths of 1.5 million civilians and that’s one of the worst chapters of WWII. It’s a histography consensus today that indiscriminate bombing didn’t shorten the war a single day. And even if we acknowledge the British and American leadership wasn’t aware of that, they were responsible for all those deaths.

Regarding those estimates on Japanese deaths in case of invasion, I guess the higher they are, more convenient they are as well. I personally don’t buy those numbers by no means.

As much as it’s necessary and healthy for German and Japanese societies to confront those historical crimes, the same are true for Americans and British. WWII carpet bombing are one of the most horrific chapters of humankind.

Well, one can choose not to accept any figures, but the ones quoted have been very well vetted.

 

[David Floyd]

I’m fully aware. “Japanese”, however, is not an individual. The atomic bombs killed 150k of civilians, mostly women and children that had nothing to do with those actions. But I guess it’s convenient that Japanese armed forces commited crimes and hence it’s ok to vaporizes hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Would you prefer vastly more deaths in Operation Downfall? Deaths that would have been eclipsed by the slaughter the Japanese were conducting in Asia?

 

[CaptainCalvert]

It is amazing the Anti US attitude we sometimes see here and that is becoming more predominant in various circles.

It is noticeable in the Idea that the US had spent about 4 years Fighting Japan with the assistance of GB and Australia and the rest but in general doing most of the heavy lifting.
The US had fought numerous naval engagements against Japan,
Invaded multiple islands. Killing or capturing tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers
Sunk pretty much the entire Japanese Navy,
Sunk most of the Japanese Merchant Marine,
Was bombing Japan at will,
Had pretty much destroyed the Air Defenses of Japan
Fire bombed multiple cities,
Generally out produced the rest of the world and supplied major aid to its Allie’s
and Dropped two unbelievable powerful bombs that flattened a City each and were of an advanced design that no one else had or would get for years using combing the two most expensive programs if the war
And yet it was the Russian Declaration of war and attack that caused Japan to give up…

I'm willing to accept that the Soviet invasion created an opening for the more rational factions to accept that there was no possibility of success by eliminating the Kwantung army that - up to that point - could be viewed as a powerful army in being.
But saying that the Soviet invasion was the cause of surrender is a bit like saying the mayor who cuts the ribbon built the bridge. The reality is that it took huge efforts by many countries acting in concert, and the Soviet contribution was useful even if was the last straw that clinched the deal, rather than the underlying hard work.
For me, the nuclear weapons are also one (important) part of the effort that helped create the realisation that defeat was inevitable AND that the allies could win without Japan doing a thing about it.

So back to using B29s without air supremacy, if they are a part of an all out attack, they can work if used smartly. Maybe a few will fail, but if you are getting something like 2 bombs a month arriving, then you have the capacity to cripple several specific targets (comunications hubs, factories, troop concentrations etc) every couple of months or to flatten most of them if you can wait to build a stockpile in addition to also waging a conventional war.
It's the use in combination with other means that can win a war, whereas two or three individual bombs won't in isolation.

 

[JohnBull]

Well, one can choose not to accept any figures, but the ones quoted have been very well vetted.

There is real hard evidence on how 20 million Japanese (and 2 million Americans) would die if Japan was invaded, other for the word of few American military strategists trying to make their point of view being adopted as American war policy? Opinions, btw, incredibly influenced by racial stereotypes (Asian fanaticism) and the need to use a very expensive weapon.

Those fantastic figures are not consistent with anything we've seen during WWII nor in history as a whole. They were mostly advertised after the bombings to help American credibility during Cold War as it's always been a very inconvenient fact of being the only country to have used an atomic bomb (and against civilians) while preaching against mass destruction weapons.

The most likely scenario is Japanese to capitulate almost immediately after Soviet landings in Hokkaido as they were seriously considering by August. And if they didn't surrender, their resistance would be so faible that military casualties amongst American troops would be extremely low, as much as it was during their advance over Germany.

Either way, I see no point to rationalized WWII air raids that have killed over 2 million civilians, virtually all women, children and elderly. They were wrong, they were criminal and it's a massive consensus (British military reached this conclusion in the late 1940's already) they didn't shorten the war for a single day. And even if it had done, it's not justifiable. Likewise, we cannot condone the Red Army behaviour against civilians from 1944 onwards on the grounds they're fighting the Nazis.

 

[JohnBull]

Would you prefer vastly more deaths in Operation Downfall? Deaths that would have been eclipsed by the slaughter the Japanese were conducting in Asia?

It's not about me prefering. It's wrong to vaporize 150,000 civilians. Keep in mind the Japanese and Germans could have used this same reasoning. In fact, Nazis very often made "humanitarian considerations" even to defend the employment of gas chambers instead of shooting. We can see where this road leads.

Regarding Operation Downfall, in a war it's expected soldiers to die, not civilians (hence the various war conventions). In any case Operation Downfall numbers are purposedly inflated to justify American military decisions. It was designed with this aim. It's not an objective fact. In fact, it's obvious wrong. During the whole war, the US lost less than 300k people and fighting against a completely unarmed Japan whose leadership was panicking with Soviets on Manchuria would have costed few thousands only and maybe an extra month or two.

 

[JohnBull]

It is amazing the Anti US attitude we sometimes see here and that is becoming more predominant in various circles.

It is noticeable in the Idea that the US had spent about 4 years Fighting Japan with the assistance of GB and Australia and the rest but in general doing most of the heavy lifting.
The US had fought numerous naval engagements against Japan,
Invaded multiple islands. Killing or capturing tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers
Sunk pretty much the entire Japanese Navy,
Sunk most of the Japanese Merchant Marine,
Was bombing Japan at will,
Had pretty much destroyed the Air Defenses of Japan
Fire bombed multiple cities,
Generally out produced the rest of the world and supplied major aid to its Allie’s
and Dropped two unbelievable powerful bombs that flattened a City each and were of an advanced design that no one else had or would get for years using combing the two most expensive programs if the war
And yet it was the Russian Declaration of war and attack that caused Japan to give up…

What kind of reasoning is that? It's precisely because Japan was virtually defeated due American actions that they were in position to give up out of the fear of Soviets.

That's not me or an anti-American saying. This was actually discussed extensively by the Japanese high command several times, even after Nagasaki while they were getting reports of the destruction. Destruction, btw, not bigger from the one in Tokyo itself they have seen with their own eyes. It's interesting this persistent orientalist myth that Japan would never surrender when they actually did surrender and had been openly discussed this surrender for a quite good time.

And this notion that a person must be anti-American only for dislike atomic and conventional bombing against urban centres is really twisted.

P.S. Pay attention on the irony of this post: the US did all that you described when supposedly "only took two bombs for Japan to surrender"...

 

[JohnBull]

I was under the impression that the whole “atomic bomb debate” among people who know history was kind of settled that Truman really didn’t have a choice in regards to dropping from a realpolitik perspective, and that the debate had shifted to was it the Soviet invasion of Manchuria or the atomic bombs that contributed more to Japan’s surrender. Also I’ve never heard of one credible WW2 historian criticize Truman for dropping the bombs. Childers, Beevor, Giancreco, Hastings, Glantz, Citino, etc. not one of them has ever criticized Truman for that decision.

From a "scientific approach" is very fair for a historian doesn't criticize a decision taken in a context where raids against civilians were a norm. If Americans had no problem to fly 300 B-29 against Tokyo killing 100,000 civilians and render 1 million homeless, why wouldn't they have used a weapon that would reach the same result in a simpler way?

It's not common either for historians to criticize Hitler on every single paragraph. Most don't do it at all. It's self-evident it's wrong by only telling the story.

As we're not professional historians nor our posts are necessarily written with history at centre, I think it's only natural and right for us to deplore such horrible acts.

 

[David Floyd]

It's not about me prefering. It's wrong to vaporize 150,000 civilians. Keep in mind the Japanese and Germans could have used this same reasoning. In fact, Nazis very often made "humanitarian considerations" even to defend the employment of gas chambers instead of shooting. We can see where this road leads.

Regarding Operation Downfall, in a war it's expected soldiers to die, not civilians (hence the various war conventions). In any case Operation Downfall numbers are purposedly inflated to justify American military decisions. It was designed with this aim. It's not an objective fact. In fact, it's obvious wrong. During the whole war, the US lost less than 300k people and fighting against a completely unarmed Japan whose leadership was panicking with Soviets on Manchuria would have costed few thousands only and maybe an extra month or two.

I wasn't talking about American soldiers, I was talking about civilians in China and Japan. Additionally, had we followed your idea of waiting an extra month or two, imagine a fully Soviet occupied Korea.

Ending the war as quickly as possible was the most humane thing to do and the atomic bomb did just that.

There is no comparison to be made with Nazi Germany, as there is no plausible argument that the intent of the Holocaust was to end the war much less no argument that it actually did so or could have done so. In fact, the Holocaust was conducted DESPITE urgent war needs.

 

[Bellacinos]

There is real hard evidence on how 20 million Japanese (and 2 million Americans) would die if Japan was invaded, other for the word of few American military strategists trying to make their point of view being adopted as American war policy? Opinions, btw, incredibly influenced by racial stereotypes (Asian fanaticism) and the need to use a very expensive weapon.

During the battle of Okinawa which was seen as the “dress rehearsal” for the invasion of Japan, Japan suffered 90% casualties while the Americans suffered 35% and Okinawa lost 50% of its civilian population of 300,000, and this was against only two Japanese divisions, while the assault on Kyushu was to have 14 Japanese divisions waiting for them.

The casualty estimates for downfall were based off the American experience in Iwo Jima, Saipan, and Okinawa, as well as an independent study done by Herbert Hoover who was an engineer and saved 15,000,000 lives after WW1 who concluded that at minimum 1,000,000 Americans would die in the invasion.

So no these estimates were not based off propaganda but hard mathematical numbers done by experts who evaluated the US experience thus far in the pacific.

Please list credible sources, that show that Downfall would not have “been so bad” and that the bombing of Japan did nothing to shorten the war, as this contradicts every credible ww2 historian.

 

[Bellacinos]

Regarding Operation Downfall, in a war it's expected soldiers to die, not civilians (hence the various war conventions). In any case Operation Downfall numbers are purposedly inflated to justify American military decisions. It was designed with this aim. It's not an objective fact. In fact, it's obvious wrong. During the whole war, the US lost less than 300k people and fighting against a completely unarmed Japan whose leadership was panicking with Soviets on Manchuria would have costed few thousands only and maybe an extra month or two.

The US suffered such low casualty estimates compared to its peers because they had the luxury of China and the Soviets paying the butcher bill, this was going to end on November 1st 1945, with Downfall. Fortunately the Manhattan project prevented this.

 

[Puzzle]

Please list credible sources, that show that Downfall would not have “been so bad” and that the bombing of Japan did nothing to shorten the war, as this contradicts every credible ww2 historian.

The one-way Downfall could have been not so bad in my mind is if the US decided to give it another six months of siege first, mining all harbors and destroying everything they could from the air until the starvation started to do the awful work instead of GIs. The war was won, the only question was how much it would cost and the atomic bombs probably were about the best that could be done.

 

[Blue cat]

It all depends on how many atomic bombs you have and how many mus arrive on target to make the mission a success.

For WWII, the common tactic still was: send in massive amounts of planes to make sure enough of them get through. Have them fly in close formation so their guns can cover each other and then provide as much fighter escort as possible.

In the case of the B.29: send in the fighters beforehand to shoot up the enemy interceptors on their airfields and then rely on the superfortress' speed and altitude.

I'm not sure how relevant the B29 defensive armaments' would have been during a night mission. Maybe the tail guns might have been useful, I believe at least some B29’s had gun laying radar for their tail guns.

Mass daytime B29 missions might have been interesting. The Soviets had large numbers of aircraft armed with heavy cannon which may not end well for the B29‘s.

On the other hand I recall reading that early in the Cold War the Canadians were quite concerned about the prospects of sending gun armed interceptors against large bombers armed with multiple radar directed guns. That being said I am doubtful that the 1940’s era B29 would have been as effective as the type of aircraft the Canadians were worried about.


Fighter sweeps (presumably in daylight ?) seem of limited use to me due to the sheer numbers of Soviet defences ? The AA threat in daytime is probably significant as well so long as the sky’s are clear.

Nighttime bombing run?

Yes, IMHO given the sheer numbers of likely Soviet Defences a night mission seems most likely to me.

 

[JohnBull]

During the battle of Okinawa which was seen as the “dress rehearsal” for the invasion of Japan, Japan suffered 90% casualties while the Americans suffered 35% and Okinawa lost 50% of its civilian population of 300,000, and this was against only two Japanese divisions, while the assault on Kyushu was to have 14 Japanese divisions waiting for them.

The casualty estimates for downfall were based off the American experience in Iwo Jima, Saipan, and Okinawa, as well as an independent study done by Herbert Hoover who was an engineer and saved 15,000,000 lives after WW1 who concluded that at minimum 1,000,000 Americans would die in the invasion.

So no these estimates were not based off propaganda but hard mathematical numbers done by experts who evaluated the US experience thus far in the pacific.

Please list credible sources, that show that Downfall would not have “been so bad” and that the bombing of Japan did nothing to shorten the war, as this contradicts every credible ww2 historian.

I'm fully aware of where those numbers came from, but one cannot assume they would be replicate in such orderly manner. Japan forces were collapsing quickly, week by week. We've seen the same thing happening in Germany.

Japan would collapse at any moment, hence the high command thinking of surrender when Soviets were on Manchuria yet. And as we've seen shortly after, Japan DID surrender.

Curiously, you're arguing the lost of 150k civilians lives made Japan to surrender at the same time you're saying Japan was entertaining the idea of having 15 million deaths and still not surrender. It makes zero sense.

 

[JohnBull]

The one-way Downfall could have been not so bad in my mind is if the US decided to give it another six months of siege first, mining all harbors and destroying everything they could from the air until the starvation started to do the awful work instead of GIs. The war was won, the only question was how much it would cost and the atomic bombs probably were about the best that could be done.

The US Navy counting with thousands and thousands of ships, USAAF with tens of thousands of aircrafts and people still believe the US would lose 2 million soldiers to defeat Japan...

Americans decided to use atomic bomb on the same spirit RAF Bomber Command was when they start a campaign that killed 600,000 German civilians and didn't shorten the war in a single day.

WWII air raids were not only criminal, but they didn't abreviate the war. That's a concensus and it actually started to be formed during the bombing campaign. It's quite shocking to me to see people actually defending the bombing campaign on the grounds "it was my country carrying the on, hence it's ok".

 

[ennobee]

It is amazing the Anti US attitude we sometimes see here and that is becoming more predominant in various circles.

It is noticeable in the Idea that the US had spent about 4 years Fighting Japan with the assistance of GB and Australia and the rest but in general doing most of the heavy lifting.
The US had fought numerous naval engagements against Japan,
Invaded multiple islands. Killing or capturing tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers
Sunk pretty much the entire Japanese Navy,
Sunk most of the Japanese Merchant Marine,
Was bombing Japan at will,
Had pretty much destroyed the Air Defenses of Japan
Fire bombed multiple cities,
Generally out produced the rest of the world and supplied major aid to its Allie’s
and Dropped two unbelievable powerful bombs that flattened a City each and were of an advanced design that no one else had or would get for years using combing the two most expensive programs if the war
And yet it was the Russian Declaration of war and attack that caused Japan to give up…

One of the stories I heard in 12th grade 'modern history' class was that either in Yalta or immediately after the fall of Berlin in May of 1945, Churchill, Roosevelt/Truman and Stalin agreed that after the fall of Germany, the USSR would wait 3 months before declaring was on Japan because the doube whammy of loosing it's last ally and gaining a new enemy would be enough to push Japan to the negotiation table. The underlying threat for the US off course would be that if Operation Downfall would come to pass, it would also involve a Russian push South and East from Siberia, and might well result in a Soviet China and Russian occupied Hokkaido. And with the US more and more taking offense to the way the Soviets set up puppet governments in the Eastern European countries they controlled, the idea of a North and South Japan next to a East and West Germany was becoming les and les apealing. That was why they dropped the nuclear bombs, only days apart in August 1945, literally 3 months after the fall of Berlin, literally at the same time of the Soviet declaration of war and the annexation of the Kurilles islands.

 

[ennobee]

But back to our main topic: how to deploy a nuclear armed B-29?

Much depends on the availability of nuclear bombs and whether we are talking of a one-bomb, one-plane infiltration mission or a squadron of nuclear armed bombers where only one has to come through for the mission to be a success.

Another issue is the date and target of the raid and linked with this the defense capacity of the adversary. Berlin in 1945 is still pretty safe, given that the B-29 could fly at extremely high altitude, well above the range of AA guns and well above the ceiling of most Luftwaffe fighters. Off course, they would loose the advantage of precision bombing, but with an atomic bomb, just hitting the suburb of Berlin that houses the Führerbunker would be enough.

In 1947, things were different already with the first generation of jet fighters being able to intercept any incoming high-altitude bomber. Also rather than bombed-out Germany, the USSR had the means to station not only the jet fighters on the approaches of most major targets, say Moscow, Sebastopol or Vladivostok, they also already had a radar warning system in place, an knew what to look for.

In 1949, finally, you had radar-guided AA rockets able to shoot a B-29 straight out of the stratosphere.

Of course, by that time your B-29's would also have radar-jamming decoy drones and launch rocket assisted nuclear missiles instead of having to drop a 'fat man' from directly above the target.

 

[David Floyd]

The US Navy counting with thousands and thousands of ships, USAAF with tens of thousands of aircrafts and people still believe the US would lose 2 million soldiers to defeat Japan...

Americans decided to use atomic bomb on the same spirit RAF Bomber Command was when they start a campaign that killed 600,000 German civilians and didn't shorten the war in a single day.

WWII air raids were not only criminal, but they didn't abreviate the war. That's a concensus and it actually started to be formed during the bombing campaign. It's quite shocking to me to see people actually defending the bombing campaign on the grounds "it was my country carrying the on, hence it's ok".

You are conflating two different scenarios and you have yet to respond to my point that Japan was slaughtering civilians in China, and the only way to stop that was by ending the war immediately.

 

[JohnBull]

You are conflating two different scenarios and you have yet to respond to my point that Japan was slaughtering civilians in China, and the only way to stop that was by ending the war immediately.

Again, it’s open to debate whether it was the atomic bomb the single reason for Japanese surrender. And even if it was, no one would know how the Japanese would react.

Aren’t you arguing the Japanese would fight till the last men and women? Then, why you assuming Japanese would surrender “only” because the destruction of one unimportant city? In fact, they didn’t surrender after the first one? 2 atomic bombs are the magical number? Why only 1 would suffice? Or maybe 5?

Either way, atomic bombs has nothing to do with Chinese civilians casualties. No one in Washington had that in mind. In fact, merely 5 years later many people in Washington were seriously entertaining the idea to nuke tens of millions of Chinese civilians.

I struggle to understand this urge to say nuke civilians is actually a good thing. The point being?

 

[David Floyd]

Again, it’s open to debate whether it was the atomic bomb the single reason for Japanese surrender. And even if it was, no one would know how the Japanese would react.

Aren’t you arguing the Japanese would fight till the last men and women? Then, why you assuming Japanese would surrender “only” because the destruction of one unimportant city? In fact, they didn’t surrender after the first one? 2 atomic bombs are the magical number? Why only 1 would suffice? Or maybe 5?

Either way, atomic bombs has nothing to do with Chinese civilians casualties. No one in Washington had that in mind. In fact, merely 5 years later many people in Washington were seriously entertaining the idea to nuke tens of millions of Chinese civilians.

I struggle to understand this urge to say nuke civilians is actually a good thing. The point being?

I am arguing what IS, not what you think OUGHT to be. The reality is, hundreds of thousands of Chinese and Korean civilians survived because the war ended. The reality is, hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians survived because the war ended. And yes, tens of thousands of Allied soldiers survived too.

I am not naïve enough to argue that the intent of dropping the atomic bomb was to save Chinese civilians. The intent was to end the war. And look what happened.