Simviation Forum - Nagasaki, the truth

Reply #15 - Jun 27^th, 2005 at 5:54am

-sam- Offline
Colonel
. .. ...
EDDM

Gender:
Posts: 608

The Manhattan Project started in fear of Germany building the bomb first. Albert Einsteins main contribution to the Atomic Bomb were not his physics but his letter to president
Eisenhower warning him that germany could build an a-bomb. That letter started the manhattan project..
Actually it was never really considered by the US to drop the bomb on Germany because until the end of 1944 they had no working plutonium and Uran enrychment plants
and the first prove that an a-bomb really works was made on 16 July 1945 with Trinity.
At that time the war for germany was nearly lost anyway. Also the development of the B29 was initiated with the
hidden agenda of having a plane that could carry an a-bomb to the japanese homeland.

I think there were several reasons why they finally dropped the bomb the way they did it.

1. To prevent an Invasion of the Japanese Homeland
and Save the life´s of thousends of US Soldiers.
(For my part I´m quite shure that this was really the main reason why Trueman decided to drop the bomb)

2. To "Test" an atomic bomb in a real world condition.
There have been plans to drop the bomb either on mount fuji or in the tokyo bay.. to demonstrate the power
and warn japan that the next bomb will hit a city
if they won´t surrender.(I would have prefered this kind of dropping). Some people say japan wanted to surrender before the dropping of the bomb. On the other hand
they didn´t surrender after little boy and it needed another bomb. Many sites label Hiroshima and Nagasaki
as "Atomic Tests" nowadays.

3. The Manhattan Project ate Billions of Dollar and was totally secret. If it wouldn´t have been a success...
a lot of people would have get into serious trouble.

4. It was war.. it was a weapon.. japan was the enemy.

Here are some more links.

The Manhattan Project.
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Med/Med.html

Atomic Veterans. Stories from Eyewitnesses of atomic tests incl. WW2 bombing.
http://www.aracnet.com/~pdxavets/a_tests.htm

Stories from people who survived Hiroshima..
http://www.inicom.com/hibakusha/

All sites are worth a closer look !!

NFo/Simviation Multiplayer Server.&&&&fs.netfrag.org:23456&&&&Stats: fs.netfrag.org&&Teamspeak: ts.netfrag.org

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #16 - Jun 27^th, 2005 at 7:42am

Hagar Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159

Quote:

Albert Einsteins main contribution to the Atomic Bomb were not his physics but his letter to president
Eisenhower warning him that germany could build an a-bomb. That letter started the manhattan project.

There seems to be some confusion on dates & presidents in this thread. Einstein's letter was written on August 2nd, 1939 to Franklin D Roosevelt who was US President at the time. http://www.dannen.com/ae-fdr.html This was two years before the USA was at war with Japan (December 7th, 1941) or Germany (December 11th, 1941). It was dated 1 month before Germany invaded Poland & the start of WWII in Europe. (3rd September, 1939).

On his death in April 1945 FDR was succeeded by his vice-President Harry S Truman who was in office at the time of the Hiroshima & Nagasaki A-bombs. General Dwight D Eisenhower did not become US President until 1952.

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #17 - Jun 27^th, 2005 at 7:53am

-sam- Offline
Colonel
. .. ...
EDDM

Gender:
Posts: 608

oh I´m sorry I confused it . I meant Roosevelt not Eisenhauer !!

I know the program was initiated in fear of Germany
building a nuclear bomb. And probabely at that time
germany was the target. But at the time the project advanced and had functional bombs, germany was
no longer a real thread.
Before Trinity in 1945 noone really knew if an atomic bomb can work at all. They didn´t even know for shure if littleboy will explode. they never could test
that design due to the very limited amounts of U-235
that were available at that time. Actually the core of littleboy was finished just 2 month before Hiroshima.

NFo/Simviation Multiplayer Server.&&&&fs.netfrag.org:23456&&&&Stats: fs.netfrag.org&&Teamspeak: ts.netfrag.org

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #18 - Jun 27^th, 2005 at 8:11am

Hagar Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159

According to this, in his short time as Vice-President Harry S Truman had no briefing on the development of the atomic bomb. What must have been an extremely difficult decision was taken after consultation with his advisers.
Quote:

During his few weeks as Vice President, Harry S Truman scarcely saw President Roosevelt, and received no briefing on the development of the atomic bomb or the unfolding difficulties with Soviet Russia. Suddenly these and a host of other wartime problems became Truman's to solve when, on April 12, 1945, he became President. He told reporters, "I felt like the moon, the stars, and all the planets had fallen on me."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/ht33.html

I think it's almost certain there would have been protests from neighbouring countries in Europe if it had ever been proposed to drop an A-bomb on Germany without Germany using it first.

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #19 - Jun 27^th, 2005 at 8:28am

-sam- Offline
Colonel
. .. ...
EDDM

Gender:
Posts: 608

I don´t wanna know Truemans feelings at that moment.
Imagine someone tells you about a super weapon
you cannot imagine in your worst nightmares
(must have been like someone tells you about little green man) and you have more or less quickly to decide if you want to use it to kill thousands of people in a blink of an eye.
Undecided

NFo/Simviation Multiplayer Server.&&&&fs.netfrag.org:23456&&&&Stats: fs.netfrag.org&&Teamspeak: ts.netfrag.org

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #20 - Jun 27^th, 2005 at 11:55am

beaky Offline
Global Moderator
Uhhhh.... yup!
Newark, NJ USA

Gender:
Posts: 14187

I'm with those who feel that a conventional invasion of Japan would have been worse for all concerned, and that Japan's military junta was not prepared to surrender, even after Hiroshima. And while many suffered horribly in the cities struck with A-bombs, the majority, I think, never knew what hit them. The Allies had been fire-bombing Japanese cities for some time... their suffering was tremendous, and yet their government remained stubborn. After Nagasaki, they changed their tune. 'Nuff said. And it was done with no US casualties, (unless you count the crew of the USS Indianapolis and possibly others who were involved in support activities). Destroying an entire city with one aircraft is the stuff of dreams for strategic air commanders; as awful as it is, it beats repeated raids on civilian centers combined with a massive ground invasion, and all the horror that goes with those activities.
However, what still bothers me is that these weapons, although neat and tidy in one sense, are incredibly irresponsible. With the warheads available today, the risk of poisoning friend and foe alike is enormous.
It was a lucky break that Japan was relatively isolated... imagine the consequences of fallout from even such a relatively small bomb if one had been dropped in Europe!

BTW- fascinating article; thanks for posting that link.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #21 - Jun 28^th, 2005 at 10:57am

Bombardier101 Offline
Colonel
I think the Caped Crusader
needs a break

Gender:
Posts: 767

Part one:

Pretty nice bringing this topic up.

Quote:

There are three good reasons in the US defence.

1) They never could have imagined that a nuclear bomb was so dangerous. They knew little on radiation. There are pictures of US soldiers experimeting with the test ones fully exposed. This shows how they didn't appreciate what the aftermath of the bombs capabilities were.
2) The Japs did not surrender under Little Boy. They were that determined that it took Fat man to ensure surrender. This shows that when they understood the results they did not give in. Therefore the US were fair to use them.
3) WWII was not soldiers v soldiers. It was all about bombing civilians too (who were just as much part of the war really) and that was the way war was fought. The US did not break the rules and just because the atom bomb obliterated in one big sweep does not mean that it is unjustifed and that a million small incidiary bombs would have been better!

1) Jeez well I thought they would've known how huge the explosion would've been. A history book says they knew they could do alot with it. Well it said something like that.... ???

2)I thought Hiroshima happened not much before Nagasaki.

3)It's a very very horrible thing to say that civilians should've been bombed just cos they were around the war zone. Incendiary bombs would have been better. Think about the enviroment Shocked

The incendiaries just burn the living cr:Dp out of a city (or whatever it's dropped on, just cities please!), they don't go poisoning everything. Fire's a little good for plant growth, so trees might like the new-look city (but if anything grows there anymore, LOL!!! Cheesy

).

Quote:

new-look city

LOL!!!

Quote:

The good thing about Japan surrendering so quickly after the second atomic bomb explosion is that more weren't used after the invasion of the home islands.

True, yes...

Quote:

all of this could lead someone to say "now we're even steven"

That whole even steven thing kinda cracks me up. But the real thing was no joke Undecided

Quote:

Its a messy thing, and it would be shallow to say that one could forgive and forget without a hint of retribution when one says it.
Its a bizarre kind of moralistic violence.

Definetly correct.

Quote:

We can condemn things as acts of vengeance

Well if vengeance is done in the right way it's 99.9% good...

Quote:

I don't care much for 1st person "shooter" games (and don't comprehend those who lose the distinction between fantasy/reality) but try Combat Flight Simulator -- with the hope that "as real as it gets" is "as real as it will ever be" -- and keep your wars to yourself.

I do hope some of the other games are "as real as they'll ever get". Soldier games where you actually kill others aren't that bad, but I couldn't imagine killing someone in a war like that while seeing the people dyin', (grenades: throw'em, then forget'em, although I wouldn't like to throw grenades at people that were innocent) well with the exception of pulling the lever on the bomb bay of a nuke B-29 or ordering onna those nukes to be let loose on innocent people.

Need a DP for your new aircraft? PM me for one!&&&&My CFS2 Addons&&&&Schleswig WW2 Base Scenery: http://www.simviation.com/cfs2scenery16.htm&&IJN Bomber Force Campaign http://www.simviation.com/cfs2missions22.htm&&WW&C France WW1 Scenery WORKING ON&&Nachtjaeger! Campaign WORKING ON&&British Nightfighter Campaign LATER&&Atlantic Martlet Campaign LATER&&Iwo-jima scenery RESUME LATER&&&&UPLOADS COMING TO SOH SOON

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #22 - Jun 28^th, 2005 at 10:59am

Bombardier101 Offline
Colonel
I think the Caped Crusader
needs a break

Gender:
Posts: 767

Part two:

Quote:

I do not see the use of the atomic bomb in WW2 as involving any sense of vengance.

It was a military decision designed to shorten (end) the war. I doubt that President Wilson leaped with joy about the opportunity to kill a million Japanese.

Would we have used it in Europe if it had been available? I have no doubt that we would have dropped one on Berlin and I would have no qualms defending President Wilson's decision to do so.

I would, however, have problems with General Ripper's (Dr. Strangelove) advice to bomb Moscow.

(Yeah, um, Truman.)

It would not have shortened the war much more. Why didn't they just bomb Tokyo till it's 100% flat area scenery (scenery developer joke, ha ha) and send in some paratroopers when the bombers had completed the job. Or send in the landing craft (quit the running through the water, though, and they could spare a few lives). But maybe if they let that time go on the Japs could've developed some of their real deadly stuff... hmmmmm...

Well, dropping on one Berlin for one would have again killed many innocent people ('cept for Hitler, but would the nuke penetrate his bunker? He was bent on suicide anywhy, so why bother? If he didn't consider suicide, then he'd end up like Goering at Nuremburg anyway). So that idea is not great either. The way the British bombed German cities wasn't pretty either. I had a relative who had a bomb fall on her house in Hamburg Cry

She lived (just) (although that realy was an accident seeing as the brits could've continued over their target at same heading and they'de be over her house, but they hit the target and they dropped over 10, so they bombing line went over the target and kept on going to her house. Pure accident, but most of Hamburg's civilian bombing wasn't accidental... Angry

). Terrible Sad

Quote:

I don´t wanna know Truemans feelings at that moment.
Imagine someone tells you about a super weapon
you cannot imagine in your worst nightmares
(must have been like someone tells you about little green man) and you have more or less quickly to decide if you want to use it to kill thousands of people in a blink of an eye

Yeah, horrible, but he shouldn't have ordered it to be dropped (let alone made!) if he could've thought of the holocaust that it would cause. I wonder what he'd be thinking after the big incident. We'll probably never know now, isn't he dead? ???

Quote:

It was a lucky break that Japan was relatively isolated... imagine the consequences of fallout from even such a relatively small bomb if one had been dropped in Europe!

Can't say that ain't true, geeeeeeshhh! Undecided

???

Quote:

With the warheads available today, the risk of poisoning friend and foe alike is enormous.

Hmmmmmm, very dangerous.... Sad

Quote:

1. To prevent an Invasion of the Japanese Homeland
and Save the life´s of thousends of US Soldiers.
(For my part I´m quite shure that this was really the main reason why Trueman decided to drop the bomb)

2. To "Test" an atomic bomb in a real world condition.
There have been plans to drop the bomb either on mount fuji or in the tokyo bay.. to demonstrate the power
and warn japan that the next bomb will hit a city
if they won´t surrender.(I would have prefered this kind of dropping). Some people say japan wanted to surrender before the dropping of the bomb. On the other hand
they didn´t surrender after little boy and it needed another bomb. Many sites label Hiroshima and Nagasaki
as "Atomic Tests" nowadays.

3. The Manhattan Project ate Billions of Dollar and was totally secret. If it wouldn´t have been a success...
a lot of people would have get into serious trouble.

4. It was war.. it was a weapon.. japan was the enemy

1) Why didn't they just borrow big-@$$ 22,000 Ib Grand Slams of the Brits. That would teach many lessons, heh heh heh... They could've done other things. Bring in the carriers! (and BBs)

2)Mt. Fuji or Tokyo bay, not great... and I can't think of many places that wouldn't damage the enviroment. That's why they shouldn't have dropped it. Starting the nuke game and putting nations in danger instead of paying a few lives to take care of our enviroment and stop a big nuclear age where you're constantly under threat if a neigbour with nukes isn't allied with you. Why the hell did they think of nukes anyway? How horrible!.

3)Don't do it in the first place, might not lose so much dough. Jeeezz... Undecided

4)Doesn't give the US the right to bomb the guts out of people who never did anything bad to them!!!!! Angry

(except for possibly some Jap soldiers, they can rot in marmelade for the soldier standards they represent! Ha ha! Grin

)

Nukes are one of the most dangerous things on the Earth. They are great fun on the computer when playing Rise of Nations and seeing virtual people suffering in marmelade, but it's not even near nice to have it happen in real life. Sad

Nuclear bombs and missiles especially have changed the world forever, in a very bad way. Sad

I really hope that one day all nukes will be discarded (another problem it's caused, nuclear waste!!???!!! Angry

) and every nation will never make a single nuke again, and use better forms of power such as wind turbine power and enviromental things like that.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima were of course horrible. Cry

Happy simming, (nukes on cfs2 only thanks! Shocked

)

Bombardier Wink

Need a DP for your new aircraft? PM me for one!&&&&My CFS2 Addons&&&&Schleswig WW2 Base Scenery: http://www.simviation.com/cfs2scenery16.htm&&IJN Bomber Force Campaign http://www.simviation.com/cfs2missions22.htm&&WW&C France WW1 Scenery WORKING ON&&Nachtjaeger! Campaign WORKING ON&&British Nightfighter Campaign LATER&&Atlantic Martlet Campaign LATER&&Iwo-jima scenery RESUME LATER&&&&UPLOADS COMING TO SOH SOON

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #23 - Jun 28^th, 2005 at 12:49pm

Felix/FFDS Offline
Admin
FINALLY an official Granddad!
Orlando, FL

Gender:
Posts: 1000000627

Bombardier, while you present some good points, I would dare say that, on the whole, you presented better points on the use of nuclear bombs - in that particular instance.

#1 - firebombing a city. Firebombing of Tokyo killed more people than the atomic bombs. The war wasn't shortened by this.

#2 - "Flattening" a city and then landing paratroops.
Bombing a city into rubble doesn't clear it - it just makes a lot more places for the defenders to hide. Between the bombing and landing paratroops, you move in the soldiers. Also, unless you quickly follow up effectively, paratroops are going to be dealt with piecemeal. There may not be many left.

#3 - An invasion would have cost many more lives - military and civilian, than were killed by the two atomic bombs.

Given the information at hand, I probably would have taken the same decision as Truman. I cannot agree to your premise that "saving the environment" was worth the cost in lives.

Now, consider this. If the US had not used the atom bombs, the Soviets would have eventually had it anyway (the spy rings were already in place and the information was pouring out), and I submit that they would they used it in, say, Korea.

Felix/FFDS

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #24 - Jun 29^th, 2005 at 4:58am

H Offline
Colonel
2003: the year NH couldn't
save face...
NH, USA

Gender:
Posts: 6837

The relationship of the original, major Axis powers -- Germany, Soviet Union and Japan -- wasn't made for lasting stability. Nuclear applications were almost inevitable; if things had gone as Hitler intended, he knew he would have to deal with Stalin, anyway (Stalin, too, was an opportunist), giving him more reason to befriend Japan, Russia's historical enemy. If things had gone any differently, any one of them would have employed against the other(s). Japan had every intention of baptizing the U.S. with "dirty bombs" as it was. If the war were extended long enough, they, too, would have had, and used, the bomb.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #25 - Jun 29^th, 2005 at 6:57am

-sam- Offline
Colonel
. .. ...
EDDM

Gender:
Posts: 608

Quote:

4)Doesn't give the US the right to bomb the guts out of people who never did anything bad to them!!!!! Angry

(except for possibly some Jap soldiers, they can rot in marmelade for the soldier standards they represent! Ha ha! Grin

)

Well it´s sad.. but that is the way war is ! There is no clean war.. and in every war there are dying to much innocent people especially children on every side.

Quote:

Nukes are one of the most dangerous things on the Earth. They are great fun on the computer when playing Rise of Nations and seeing virtual people suffering in marmelade, but it's not even near nice to have it happen in real life. Sad

Nuclear bombs and missiles especially have changed the world forever, in a very bad way. Sad

I agree that nukes are the most horrible thing mankind ever made. But I do only partial agree that nukes
changed the world in a very bad way. I agree they changed it
in a very bad way if we look at all the test areas that are now radiated for centuries.. and all people that suffer
around these areas.

But it´s a fact that nukes are technology.. if the one guy hadn´t build them.. another one would have done it.
There has been an Experiment in the USA to prove that . It was called "The Nt´s Country Experiment". They took 2 physic students straight after they finished university
and gave them only informations that were public available at that time (think it was in the 60´s or 70´s
so NO internet) and after a year they had a working
nuclear bomb without a manhattan size project.
That does not mean everybody can easily build a nuke.. but every country that has some scientists and is able to get enough U235 or Plutonium is able to do so.
Even the very much more complicated H-Bomb
was autonomous developed in a lot of countries.
(china, france, russia, britain) so far my point of view
regarding the technolgy of nukes.

Some other points.. without nukes the cold war would have been a hot one. I´m 100% shure Russia would have invaded Europe and there wouldn´t be much left of
our continent after 50000 soviet tanks rolled over it.
Or look at the Cuba Crisis.. ok actually it was all about nukes.. but imagine the same situation without nukes.
Russia installes ballistic non-nuclear missles in cuba to attack the USA. Probabely within a day there would have been massive airstrikes on cuba (maybe killing innocent people ?) maybe followed by WW3.. but it were nukes so every party was forced (by common sense) to negotiate.
Same with India and Pakistan. Since both have nukes
they are talking to each other again.
I also highly oppose the plans to build new little bunker buster nukes.. in my opinion nukes must be big.. so big
that noone dares using them. (and big enough to vaporize
incoming meteorites)

I really do not think that nukes are good or essential to keep the peace but they are technolgy and it´s obvious that man does.. what man can do. (Next big thing will be genetics) I think it´s a fascinating aspect how mankind handled (handles) the first thing that really could mean the end of the world. Maybe one day when all common sence is gone.. and we nuke ourselfs out of this galaxy...
we probabely deserve it.

Quote:

I really hope that one day all nukes will be discarded (another problem it's caused, nuclear waste!!???!!! Angry

) and every nation will never make a single nuke again, and use better forms of power such as wind turbine power and enviromental things like that.

I agree !!
If everyone would think like you... the world would be a better place... but I´m sorry that´s unfortunately far away from reality. I think it is an essential part of our
human nature that we are driven by competition. And that
will always end in some sort of conflict.

cheers

NFo/Simviation Multiplayer Server.&&&&fs.netfrag.org:23456&&&&Stats: fs.netfrag.org&&Teamspeak: ts.netfrag.org

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #26 - Jun 29^th, 2005 at 7:26am

Hagar Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159

The fact is that once something has been invented it's not possible to uninvent it. "Pandora's Box". Many scientists are pacifists like Einstein & their research is intended for peaceful purposes but the military is always looking for bigger & better weapons. Almost every new invention you can think of has been assessed for military applications. (The aeroplane was at first dismissed as of little practical use in war. WWI proved that wrong.)

Nuclear energy is being promoted by many governments & scientists as the only practical solution to the dwindling fossil fuel resources. Unfortunately, peaceful use of nuclear power also creates the essential weapons grade plutonium necessary for a nuclear bomb as a by-product. This is the conundrum. How can the nations already having this technology morally deny it to anyone else?

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #27 - Jun 29^th, 2005 at 7:28am

Flt.Lt.Andrew Ex Member

I have to say, and I may cop a lot of flak from this, but society accepts the event of those bombs being dropped a lot better than if those bombs were dropped on Germany.

Secondly, I think that it must've taken much moral strength to drop that bomb, and I hope the crew have found peace.

A.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #28 - Jun 29^th, 2005 at 7:50am

Hagar Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159

Quote:

Secondly, I think that it must've taken much moral strength to drop that bomb, and I hope the crew have found peace.

A.

Ever heard of Group Captain Leonard Cheshire?
Quote:

GROUP CAPTAIN GEOFFREY LEONARD CHESHIRE VC, DFC, DSO 2bar

Leonard Cheshire was born in Chester, England, on 7th September 1917. He was educated at Stowe School and Merton College, Oxford.

After the outbreak of the Second World War he joined the Royal Air Force. He was posted to 102 Squadron and by August 1942 had been promoted to squadron commander of of 76 Squadron. In March 1943 at the age if twenty-five he became the youngest Group Captain in the RAF.

In November 1943 he was given command of 617 Squadron and over the next few months developed new low-level marking techniques that dramatically increased bombing accuracy.

In 1944 Cheshire was awarded the Victoria Cross after completing a hundred bombing missions on heavily defended targets in Nazi Germany. Cheshire was chosen as the official British observer of the atom bomb dropped on Nagasaki.

Quote:

He was discharged on medical grounds in January 1946, He founded the Cheshire Foundation homes for the incurably sick. Lord Cheshire died on the 31st July 1992 of Motor Neurone disease.

Quote:

After the war Cheshire dedicated his life to maintaining world peace and was a member of CND. Cheshire also joined with his wife, Sue Ryder, to establish the Sue Ryder Foundation for the sick and disabled. Leonard Cheshire, who was created Baron Cheshire in 1991, died on 31st July, 1992

http://www.dambusters.org.uk/cheshire.htm

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #29 - Jun 29^th, 2005 at 11:23am

Bombardier101 Offline
Colonel
I think the Caped Crusader
needs a break

Gender:
Posts: 767

Quote:

#2 - "Flattening" a city and then landing paratroops.
Bombing a city into rubble doesn't clear it - it just makes a lot more places for the defenders to hide. Between the bombing and landing paratroops, you move in the soldiers. Also, unless you quickly follow up effectively, paratroops are going to be dealt with piecemeal. There may not be many left.

You've got quite a point there. That was the Mona Casino story, wasn't it? Maybe it wouldn't have been good for an invasion. Did the US tell the Japs that they could drop a nuke on Japan anyway? If they did tell them which cities (but provdide the bomber(s) with heavy cover), well I guess it's fair enough and the Japs should have evacuated major cities or got proper air-raid shelters (preferebly the evacuation cos Mitsubishi was making junk that didn't work great at that time.

Need a DP for your new aircraft? PM me for one!&&&&My CFS2 Addons&&&&Schleswig WW2 Base Scenery: http://www.simviation.com/cfs2scenery16.htm&&IJN Bomber Force Campaign http://www.simviation.com/cfs2missions22.htm&&WW&C France WW1 Scenery WORKING ON&&Nachtjaeger! Campaign WORKING ON&&British Nightfighter Campaign LATER&&Atlantic Martlet Campaign LATER&&Iwo-jima scenery RESUME LATER&&&&UPLOADS COMING TO SOH SOON

Back to top

IP Logged

	Search the archive: