4 ms·

I don't think the Japanese was defending very well against the firebombs either by that point. > Japan didn't have the resources to fight against singular bomb

I don't think the Japanese was defending very well against the firebombs either by that point. > Japan didn't have the resources to fight against singular bombers anymore. They focused only on the groups of bombers. At this point, it was clear that their air-force was soundly defeated. It doesn't really make sense that it is easier to take down 10 bombers than 1, does it? It sounds like you mean the hypothetical where as many bombers were each sent individual to nuke as many cities that would be harder to defend against, because any bombers that got through would do so much more damage. So it's important to differential between potential destruction and actual destruction. The firebombings did incontrovertibly more damage, and after the war both governments had reason to not emphasize this.

tehjoker 5y ago
Curtis LeMay once commented that if the Axis had won he would have been tried for war crimes. Yea, the fire bombing was truly insane. A fictional account based on the author's experience of what occurred in Dresden, Germany can be found in Slaughterhouse V by Kurt Vonnegut. https://www.toptenz.net/brutal-facts-about-general-curtis-lemay.php https://www.toptenz.net/brutal-facts-about-general-curtis-le... This is not to say anything nice about the Axis powers, but more to dispel the illusion that the American military were some kind of heroic force.
btilly 5y ago
It doesn't really make sense that it is easier to take down 10 bombers than 1, does it? If you fire an imprecise weapon at a group of 10 bombers, your odds of hitting one of them can be up to 10x what it is if the same weapon fired at a single bomber. If you have limited ammunition, it is therefore sensible to wait for the group of 10 before firing. So it's important to differential between potential destruction and actual destruction. The firebombings did incontrovertibly more damage, and after the war both governments had reason to not emphasize this. Yeah. The USA invented a weapon (napalm) specifically intended to target the poorest neighborhoods in Japan. And those neighborhoods were so vulnerable exactly because the Japanese government didn't care about the people living there. It was much safer to talk about how big and threatening nuclear bombs were.
- dragontamer 5y ago
  I don't believe that Japan had limited ammunition quite yet. But they had limited ace pilots and limited fighters at this point of the war. (The strategic bombs targeted airbases, airplane factories, and radar. The longer the bombings continued, the weaker the airforce got).
dragontamer 5y ago
> It doesn't really make sense that it is easier to take down 10 bombers than 1, does it? In 1944, these were largely "strategic" bombers: who had more range than our fighters. I believe they were unescorted (our fighters / carriers simply didn't have enough range yet to provide assistance). These large "superfortress" bombers may have had machine gun defenses, but they couldn't dodge or dogfight. They were sitting ducks (albeit at higher altitudes than Japanese aircraft could follow, but these superfortresses weren't made for air-superiority... not at all). This means that if a Japanese fighter / interceptor was most efficient vs these strategic bombing runs. Once you shot down one bomber, you're already to shoot down a 2nd or 3rd. Your most efficient use of fighters was therefore against groups of bombers. ---------- Its not about the "difficulty" of the task, and more about the "efficiency" of the task. One Ace pilot could kill 2 or 3 bombers during the defense of a city. But if only 1-bomber "scout" were going somewhere, its just not worth your ace pilot's time or energy. The best they could do is shoot down just one enemy bomber.
- vkou 5y ago
  450 B-29s were lost in the pacific theatre (Only 300 of which to enemy action). They were credited for shooting down 714 fighters, with 456 probably destroyed, and 770 damaged. Given their heavy defensive armaments, I would not describe that as a 'sitting duck'. As Japan lost the ability to actually put planes in the air, B-29 guns started getting stripped out, because they were no longer necessary. Yes, they were big targets, but they were also flying quickly, at high altitudes. A fighter only carries so much ammunition, can quickly expend it, and has poor accuracy when shooting at a distant, fast-moving target. Due to the fuel shortages, available fighter loiter time was very low, so it doesn't get more than one, maybe two chances in a sortie to even take a shot at a B-29. And even if some of its shots hit, it's still quite likely that the bomber will make it back home.

tehjoker 5y ago

Curtis LeMay once commented that if the Axis had won he would have been tried for war crimes. Yea, the fire bombing was truly insane. A fictional account based on the author's experience of what occurred in Dresden, Germany can be found in Slaughterhouse V by Kurt Vonnegut. https://www.toptenz.net/brutal-facts-about-general-curtis-lemay.php https://www.toptenz.net/brutal-facts-about-general-curtis-le... This is not to say anything nice about the Axis powers, but more to dispel the illusion that the American military were some kind of heroic force.

btilly 5y ago

It doesn't really make sense that it is easier to take down 10 bombers than 1, does it? If you fire an imprecise weapon at a group of 10 bombers, your odds of hitting one of them can be up to 10x what it is if the same weapon fired at a single bomber. If you have limited ammunition, it is therefore sensible to wait for the group of 10 before firing. So it's important to differential between potential destruction and actual destruction. The firebombings did incontrovertibly more damage, and after the war both governments had reason to not emphasize this. Yeah. The USA invented a weapon (napalm) specifically intended to target the poorest neighborhoods in Japan. And those neighborhoods were so vulnerable exactly because the Japanese government didn't care about the people living there. It was much safer to talk about how big and threatening nuclear bombs were.

dragontamer 5y ago
I don't believe that Japan had limited ammunition quite yet. But they had limited ace pilots and limited fighters at this point of the war. (The strategic bombs targeted airbases, airplane factories, and radar. The longer the bombings continued, the weaker the airforce got).

dragontamer 5y ago

> It doesn't really make sense that it is easier to take down 10 bombers than 1, does it? In 1944, these were largely "strategic" bombers: who had more range than our fighters. I believe they were unescorted (our fighters / carriers simply didn't have enough range yet to provide assistance). These large "superfortress" bombers may have had machine gun defenses, but they couldn't dodge or dogfight. They were sitting ducks (albeit at higher altitudes than Japanese aircraft could follow, but these superfortresses weren't made for air-superiority... not at all). This means that if a Japanese fighter / interceptor was most efficient vs these strategic bombing runs. Once you shot down one bomber, you're already to shoot down a 2nd or 3rd. Your most efficient use of fighters was therefore against groups of bombers. ---------- Its not about the "difficulty" of the task, and more about the "efficiency" of the task. One Ace pilot could kill 2 or 3 bombers during the defense of a city. But if only 1-bomber "scout" were going somewhere, its just not worth your ace pilot's time or energy. The best they could do is shoot down just one enemy bomber.

vkou 5y ago
450 B-29s were lost in the pacific theatre (Only 300 of which to enemy action). They were credited for shooting down 714 fighters, with 456 probably destroyed, and 770 damaged. Given their heavy defensive armaments, I would not describe that as a 'sitting duck'. As Japan lost the ability to actually put planes in the air, B-29 guns started getting stripped out, because they were no longer necessary. Yes, they were big targets, but they were also flying quickly, at high altitudes. A fighter only carries so much ammunition, can quickly expend it, and has poor accuracy when shooting at a distant, fast-moving target. Due to the fuel shortages, available fighter loiter time was very low, so it doesn't get more than one, maybe two chances in a sortie to even take a shot at a B-29. And even if some of its shots hit, it's still quite likely that the bomber will make it back home.