Has any single plane ever saved so many lives?

[Dowding]

How many did the B29 save over Tokyo?

How someone could try and make this into a "national pride in your bomber" pissing match is beyond me.

That you draw that conclusion says more about you than about me. The lanc is just an example of a similar plane that did similar things to the B29. Interchange it with the Ju-88 if it makes you feel better.

[AKIron]

According to these guys an invasion of Japan would have meant certain death for POWs there. The atomic bombs were worth it even if they saved only these.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/macarthur/sfeature/bataan_siege.html

[Martlet]

I could care less how many Japs it killed.  They should have thought of that before they started crap.  It would have been nice if we had a few more to drop with it.

[Sabre]

Dang, the article says it won't be open to viewing until December.  I'm going to be in D.C. next month, too.  Timing is everything, isn't it?

[Dago]

The lanc is just an example of a similar plane that did similar things

Dowding

The article (and the origination of this thread) is about one very specific aircraft, not a type or series of aircraft.  It is about the Enola Gay.  That one aircraft is the aircraft that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima.  The article that this thread was about was only talking about that very specific aircraft.

Which specific Lancaster, and which specific mission are you comparing against the Enola Gay and the Hiroshima bombing?

Dago

[funkedup]

The funny thing is that the plane that really ended the war (Bock's Car) sits on display in Dayton with no hoopla or political BS.  

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by funkedup
The funny thing is that the plane that really ended the war (Bock's Car) sits on display in Dayton with no hoopla or political BS.  

I wouldn't say that Bocks Car ended the war, but I would say that it just put an exclamation point on "They're Serious, Emperor!"

[davidpt40]

"On June 18, 1945, Admiral Leahy pointed out that, if the "Olympic" invasion force took casualties at the same rate as Okinawa, that could mean 268,000 casualties (about 50,000 dead) on Kyushu.  It nonetheless appears likely that post-war estimates of a half million American deaths were too high, but many tens of thousands of dead were a real possibility.

Judgement at the Smithsonian, page 49.

Now for the three different battle plans the U.S. might have used:

"*The most likely, an autumn 1945 attack on southern Kyushu, followed by the Tokyo plain (in early 1946)- about 40,000 American dead, 150,000 wounded, and 2,500 missing.

*the least likely, an autumn 1945 attack on southern Kyushu, followed by northwestern Kyushu- 25,000 Americans dead, 105,000 wounded, and 2,500 missing;

*an autumn 1945 attack on southern Kyushu, followed by northwestern Kyushu and then (in early 1946) the Tokyo plain- 46,000 American dead, 170,000 wounded, and 4,000 missing in action"

Judgement at the Smithsonian, page 180

[Tarmac]

Originally posted by davidpt40
"On June 18, 1945, Admiral Leahy pointed out that, if the "Olympic" invasion force took casualties at the same rate as Okinawa, that could mean 268,000 casualties (about 50,000 dead) on Kyushu.  It nonetheless appears likely that post-war estimates of a half million American deaths were too high, but many tens of thousands of dead were a real possibility.

Judgement at the Smithsonian, page 49.

Now for the three different battle plans the U.S. might have used:

"*The most likely, an autumn 1945 attack on southern Kyushu, followed by the Tokyo plain (in early 1946)- about 40,000 American dead, 150,000 wounded, and 2,500 missing.

*the least likely, an autumn 1945 attack on southern Kyushu, followed by northwestern Kyushu- 25,000 Americans dead, 105,000 wounded, and 2,500 missing;

*an autumn 1945 attack on southern Kyushu, followed by northwestern Kyushu and then (in early 1946) the Tokyo plain- 46,000 American dead, 170,000 wounded, and 4,000 missing in action"

Judgement at the Smithsonian, page 180

And then add japanese military and civillian deaths to that.

[Dago]

The funny thing is that the plane that really ended the war (Bock's Car)

Sounds like an opinion (not necessarily shared by many) stated as historical fact.  I don't think either attack can be said to be the ultimate reason the war ended, but rather the realization of the level of weapon they were now facing and the fact that it might be next used against Tokyo probably had alot to due with the unconditional surrender of Japan.

dago

[Bartok]

The Japanese had (and to a certain extent, still do have) a sense of honor... Getting killed in battle was, for most fighting Japanese, much more honorable than surviving by surrender.  A good example of this attitude: when the emperor was about to declare a Japanese surrender, there were assassins out to KILL THEIR OWN EMPEROR, just so they wouldn't have to live with the dishonor that came from giving up.  This was after both bombs had been dropped.

The Japanese army would fight to the death on their own turf, more viciously than anything the Americans had seen up until that point.  History tells us that as the American's moved closer to Japan, casualties from battles kept growing.  The American invasion force would land on Southern Kyushu, which is full of cliffs and heavy vegetation.   They would be forced to fight an uphill battle in unfamiliar terrain, against a Japanese army that would never give up.  Chances are that some civilians would be forced to fight as well.  Japanese casualties would be much higher than American casualties.

Now, I just need to find the book I read about all this...

But on another note, the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki rank 2nd and 5th as the attacks of WW2 that cost the most lives.  The only reason anyone makes a big deal is that they were both done with a single bomb.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by davidpt40
"On June 18, 1945, Admiral Leahy pointed out that, if the "Olympic" invasion force took casualties at the same rate as Okinawa, that could mean 268,000 casualties (about 50,000 dead) on Kyushu.  It nonetheless appears likely that post-war estimates of a half million American deaths were too high, but many tens of thousands of dead were a real possibility.

Judgement at the Smithsonian, page 49.

Now for the three different battle plans the U.S. might have used:

"*The most likely, an autumn 1945 attack on southern Kyushu, followed by the Tokyo plain (in early 1946)- about 40,000 American dead, 150,000 wounded, and 2,500 missing.

*the least likely, an autumn 1945 attack on southern Kyushu, followed by northwestern Kyushu- 25,000 Americans dead, 105,000 wounded, and 2,500 missing;

*an autumn 1945 attack on southern Kyushu, followed by northwestern Kyushu and then (in early 1946) the Tokyo plain- 46,000 American dead, 170,000 wounded, and 4,000 missing in action"

Judgement at the Smithsonian, page 180

What's your point?  That his thread title should read "Has any single plane ever saved so many AMERICAN lives?

[udet]

Yeah I was thinking about the B29 too...saved a lot of AMERICAN and JAPANSES lives, probably in terms of millions. Compare tha with the 100,000 it ended.

[Puke]

I would agree to the topic of this thread and the aircraft, the Enola Gay.  However, in contrast, that same aircraft (or Bock's Car) probably also holds the title for having extenguished the most lives as well.

Dago, just ignore Dowding.  That guy will argue anything, just to hear his own keyboard, I think.

[Fishu]

So many excuses for dropping couple of abombs.

Geez.. do some of you people even look at yourself what you're posting here.
Elsewhere some of you are going nuts over other similar kind of things that other nations does and then praising how 2 abombs saved lives and makes right for dropping those...

Hypocrisy at it's best.