Re: A thought regarding Midway invasion

edward ohare <edward_ohare@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 15:53:53 -0400, Rich Rostrom
<rrostrom.21stcentury@xxxxxxx> wrote:

edward ohare <edward_ohare@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

A man at work ex USAF, 20 years, thinks any war can be won by dropping
atomic bombs

Umm, unfortunately, he's correct.


Doesn't sell.

The two atomic bombings each did less damage and killed fewer people
than massed attacks with conventional weapons. So why should I be
more afraid of 1 B29 carrying an atomic bomb than 300 carrying
conventional weapons?

Yes, the the atomic bomb was no more a real
improvement over conventional bombs than the
machine was over the muzzle-loading musket.

After all, a battalion of 300 men with muskets
could fire just as fast as a Browning .50 cal...

The conventional weapons were more effective
and cost less even considering the extra aircraft required.

What was it.. the first two atomic bombs EACH cost more all the B29s ever
built?

No. The entire cost of the Manhattan District
was about $2 billion. The 4,000 B-29s cost about
$2.4 billion.

But conflating development cost with incremental
cost is a very silly approach.

The U.S. could produce additional Bombs at a
cost of maybe $500,000 each. One B-29, one
Bomb, one city devastated. Cost ~$1M.

Or send 300 B-29s at a cost of $200M, plus
3,000 crew.

to defeat an enemy through destroying his
cities it takes

1) Many months of bombing with many cities destroyed

Or one month of bombing with atomic bombs.

The B-29 campaign against Japan required
15,000 sorties, and delivered about 150,000
tons of payload against 70 targets.

A campaign with atomic bombs would have achieved
far more with only 70 or so attacks. Say 80,
because some of the larger targets were attacked
several times. The payload equivalent would have
been 1,600,000 tons of explosive - ten times as
much, delivered in a matter of two to four weeks,
rather than five months.
--
| People say "There's a Stradivarius for sale for a |
| million," and you say "Oh, really? What's wrong |
| with it?" - Yitzhak Perlman |

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A thought regarding Midway invasion
    ... If you think the cost of a half-dozen atomic bombs was prohibitive, ... we built not a half-dozen but thousands of nukes. ...
    (soc.history.war.world-war-ii)
  • Re: A thought regarding Midway invasion
    ... atomic bombs, citing the fact the USAAF won WWII by dropping two big ... than massed attacks with conventional weapons. ... Many months of bombing with many cities destroyed ... As far as a non-cost effective weapons system, I'd put USAAF heavy ...
    (soc.history.war.world-war-ii)