B-29 losses and the KI45

[branch37]

I am just about to finish Max Boot's "War Made New"  it's a great read about how the proper implementation of cutting edge technology at the time helped otherwise evenly matched opponents gain a lopsided victory based on the newer technology. 

He writes a bit about the B-29s operating from China simply because they didnt have any bases close enough to Japan at the time.  The airfields in China depended on supplies being flown over the "Hump".  IIRC he says that it took somewhere around a month of supply flights to stockpile enough supplies to fly 1 B-29 mission from China. 

[pembquist]

You've peaked my curiousity. Does his thesis include the supposition that Japan and the Allies were otherwise evenly matched?

[branch37]

No not really.  The chapter on WWII in the pacific is kind of an oddball in the book. 

You've peaked my curiousity. Does his thesis include the supposition that Japan and the Allies were otherwise evenly matched?

He is comparing the differences in tactics in strategic bombing in the ETO versus the PTO, and why it could work, at least better in Japan than in Europe.  Mostly the change from daylight precision bombing to the firebombing of Tokyo. 

[Krusty]

You've peaked my curiousity. Does his thesis include the supposition that Japan and the Allies were otherwise evenly matched?

I'm sorry.. but I must! When you post with such words as thesis and supposition and otherwise, but you type "peaked" instead of "piqued"... I must correct!

To pique one's interest is to excite or arouse one's interest in a subject. Just FYI.

In terms of the book: I haven't read it myself but also am highly dubious on that phrasing alone. There was nothing equal about the matchup, not at all. Especially at that phase in the war when the war was all but OVER. The Japanese had been driven back to their homeland and the remaining planes were beat, broken, underperforming, and they had so few pilots they weren't even training new ones. They were training kamikazes because that was faster.

I question the tone of the book, if not the actual facts. Sounds a bit revisionist.

[branch37]

I'm sorry.. but I must! When you post with such words as thesis and supposition and otherwise, but you type "peaked" instead of "piqued"... I must correct!

To pique one's interest is to excite or arouse one's interest in a subject. Just FYI.

In terms of the book: I haven't read it myself but also am highly dubious on that phrasing alone. There was nothing equal about the matchup, not at all. Especially at that phase in the war when the war was all but OVER. The Japanese had been driven back to their homeland and the remaining planes were beat, broken, underperforming, and they had so few pilots they weren't even training new ones. They were training kamikazes because that was faster.

I question the tone of the book, if not the actual facts. Sounds a bit revisionist.

Having re read my post, I didn't relay the message of the book very well.  At no point does he argue that the two sides were anywhere near evenly matched.  He is only describing a change in strategic bombing tactics; how strategic bombing could work in Japan in ways that it could not in Germany.  The chapter simply points out a way to use the B-29s in a way that they were not necessarily designed for, to achieve the same result.  I.e, end the war through strategic bombing by crippling the enemy's infrastructure. 

[Krusty]

Fair enough. I won't let my previous thought prejudice me against it. 

[FLOOB]

I read someplace that some B-32's were shot down by N1k2's.

[Brooke]

A good book that contains a lot of B-29 information and action is "Whirlwind," by Tillman.