PDA

View Full Version : 60 Years On: Enemy raiders using bombs of new type?


Archaic
08-08-2005, 08:06 AM
http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/national/news/20050806p2a00m0na019000c.html

From the Front page of the Aug. 8, 1945, edition of the Mainichi Daily News.

Fairly heavy damage caused in Hiroshima by small number of B-29's.

IMPERIAL GENERAL HEADQUARTERS, Aug. 7, 1945 (16:30 hours)

(1) Fairly great damage was caused in Hiroshima city when it was attacked by a small number of enemy B-29's on August 6.

(2) Although the enemy is believed to have utilized new-type bombs, details are now under investigation.

Attached To Parachutes

A small number of enemy B-29's penetrated into Hiroshima on August 6 shortly after 8 a.m. and dropped a number of explosive bombs, as a result of which a considerable number of houses in the city were destroyed and fire broke out at various places.

It seems that the enemy dropped new-type bombs attached to parachutes which exploded in the air.

Although details are still under investigation, their explosive power cannot be made light of. (Reproduced from the Aug. 8, 1945, edition of the Mainichi Daily News)

Kadabra
08-08-2005, 12:50 PM
One of the earliest uses of cluster bombs, I suppose?

Zhen Lin
08-08-2005, 01:09 PM
FYI, August 6, 1945 was the date Hiroshima was A-bombed.

Today, August 9, is the 60th anniversary of Nagasaki being A-bombed.

Evil Figment
08-08-2005, 01:16 PM
Yep. The "new type bomb" was indeed the first military use of an atomic bomb.

Kadabra
08-08-2005, 01:26 PM
Ah, I see. The article was somewhat misleading with its "considerable damage" wording...an understatement.

Zhen Lin
08-08-2005, 01:35 PM
Indeed. Non-concrete buildings either burned away or got blown away.

GrnMarvl13
08-08-2005, 01:57 PM
Of course. They couldn't reveal the true extent of the damage, it would have been bad for morale. That's why it took two nukes to end the war instead of one.

Had a great thing on the Discovery Channel about Hiroshima, with interviews from the crew aboard the "Enola Gay" and several survivors of the bomb. Really did a great job of showing how people were affected. And I never realized that the photography crew was on a plane named "Necessary Evil."

Sharpshooter
08-08-2005, 02:25 PM
Temperature core was approximatley 150,000 degrees within the first 14 metres of impact, 7000 around the 50 metre mark, and then 6000 and cooling for anything further.

I think there's been claims that Japan could have surrended without the bombing, but the only way I could have seen it would have been with a full scale invasion, but you would have probably had the same amount of people killed plus thousands of American casulties as well, so it was tragic but to a certain extent justified for the fact that it brought the end to the war of course.

The Big Al
08-08-2005, 06:14 PM
The Samauri code would have never allowed surrender. Truman had to bluff a third nuke in order for the Japanese to surrender to surrender. In fact, several of the military leaders committed suicide before the offical surrender because of the dishonor.

It was the difference between the death of thousands and the death of millions in an all out invasion.

Girafarig_Magcargo
08-09-2005, 03:08 PM
http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/national/news/20050806p2a00m0na019000c.html

From the Front page of the Aug. 8, 1945, edition of the Mainichi Daily News.

What's the point of this? It only shows the Japanese didn't know what happened at Hiroshima besides a big explosion.

GrnMarvl13
08-09-2005, 03:27 PM
The point of it is the historical value. It shows how most Japanese perceived the first bomb dropping (unless I'm DRASTICALLY mistaken about how the news of the bomb was carried).