RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers - 6/11/2012 5:49:06 PM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

Hello danlongman,

I sent you a PM and a forum email with my contact info. You sound like someone I would like to get to know.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to danlongman)

Post #: 91

RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers - 6/11/2012 6:17:33 PM

Dan Nichols

Posts: 863
Joined: 8/30/2011
Status: offline

Personally I like these types of threads. I don't read what Cid has to say, but often the responses are funny as heck.

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 92

RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers - 6/13/2012 12:48:37 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

What gets me about this thread, why did it even get started? This is all about a mod that is adding atomic bombs. I know over the years I have seen hundreds of comments where the answer was, "if ya want to change it there is an editor." I for one don't care if Cid wants to add nuc's to his mod. Yet we have 3 pages of comments, on a topic that is really unimportant.

true. Cid has the right to do whatever he wants in his mod and that of itself is no big deal. Cid simply doing a mod puts him far beyond our true collection of trolls such as Diehl, who i can see has chimed in, on a thread on the sub-forum devoted to mods and scenarios for a game he's never owned or played. I mention this only to highlight that I don't consider Cid a "troll" unlike our boy Diehl despite some comparisons.

That being said......when Cid presented post#2 on this thread, he started the chain of events that went beyond modding. He implied justifications for what he was doing in his mod to real world history and then did his usual wink wink.......i'm in the know unlike the bulk of the rest of humanity which given the subject matter is bound to rub someone's nose the wrong way. Admitedly some people's reactions did go a bit over the top but Cid's tendancy to mix self promotion and questionable to vague citations for justifying what he says followed by yet more self promotion about how his integrity, and of people's violent reactions being par for the course for ones who don't wish to expand their viewpoints...... can be argued as designed to entice a reaction in the same way that our true Trolls do. The Devil can quote scripture.....or cite facts, or cite "compelling evidence".....a favorite buzz term of trolls and non-trolls.

I actually took the time to read all 6000+ words of Cid's intentionally verbose contemplations trying to see if there was any merit to what he hinted at. if nothing else i found the "citations" he claimed were there and let others take it from there by posting them without them also having to go through a tiring exercise in concentration. Personally i was disapointed. Call it Cid bashing on my part but I at least gave him the benie of a doubt. Ultimately he can do whatever he wants in his mod. If he wants bio weapons and Jet stream baloon bombs, go for it. Modding is part of what WitP and WitP AE are all about. Ultimately if even one person downloads and likes his mod, then its a worthwhile effort for him.

When you try to cite some mod elements as historical however, you invite others to comment appropriately. All Cid needed to do at that point was post his evidence in succint fashion, bereft of his stories about himself and all the other tangents he goes on when he writes.....and let it be. However thats not what happened and the resultant Fubar was not unexpected as a result.

Nik,

You got it wrong. Balloon is spelled with two ls not one.

Spot on with the rest.

I thought the information might be of interest to a few modders or those interested in mod design (presumably those not interested would not be in this forum). I also thought that those who already know everything about the matter, or who believe I would always get everything wrong, might ignore such a thread - since things have been relatively quiet for a long time. Nevertheless, I think witpqs (what a handle!) may have a point about how to proceed with slightly less controversy? There are indeed problems with documentation - doubly so in English (since the original materials were not written in English) - and with the sheer time required to go to the primary level (MAGIC intercept xyz, blueprint abcd, etc) - not to mention that some of the critics want documents they can find in the local library - which pretty much limits one to books in English. All I attempted to do was establish that there is a foundation in the form of research and development - and that over time more and more dimensions of that have been revealed. Since no atomic bombs were dropped on Tinian, or San Francisco, or anywhere else the enemy might have chosen, clearly the chances of such a thing are low - and probably relegated to a later time if the war had lasted longer. My intent was to address a request for the possibility of a Japanese bomb in that time frame, and delivery systems for it - as well as to experiment with both code and non-coded solutions given reports of problems with trying to use the existing bomb. One reason the Allies have a kind not in the code slot is as a hedge - and as a control case - to measure the effects of a defined super conventional bomb. This isn't really different than the Uji bomb also found in RHS - which is an addempt to model a bw weapon actually used. Code has no provision for bw - so it is entirely experimental - and a compromise in some respects. These are techincal matters which ought to be fair game in this forum. I do not require anyone to believe there was a horserace to get the bomb first. But there was. The Day Man Lost - written by scholars (I learned last week from John Dower) even if not documented to scholarly standards - probably has the best summary English language account of that race as it was understood in the 1960s - when it was written. It does create the impression that research didn't get past the preliminary stages, but leaves no doubt there were reactors and good intelligence and remarkable theoretical understanding of fundamentals (better in some respects that existed anywhere else). In a hypothetical game world, it should be possible to build on that foundation given enough time and resources.

I do not believe in atomic warfare - particularly not on cities (which the game seems to require) - and note that US planning until 1945 was NOT to use them on cities (the first target was long planned to be Truk naval operating base). I also do not think dedicating a plane factory to making an atomic bomber is wise use of resources - and so it is a mistake to invest that way. But I think players should be able to do things I don't think are wise - for fun or because they believe passionately it is 'realistic.' Just as they should be able to build Shinano - as a battleship - or as a terrible carrier - in a historical scenario. Not because I recommend either.

I don't particularly worry about anyone who cannot keep things in reasonable perspective. Reasonable people with strong feelings are free to totally disregard what I say - even not to read it in the first place. And it is perfectly reasonable to say you are skeptical of what I say. But even I am regularly surprised by what comes out. I was "sure" there was no German atom bomb - to the extent I "knew" an expedition to the test site on Bornholm island could not measure anything. [I have been to ground zero of the US test - and flowers grow there - but my meter didn't read anything.] Yet I was wrong - and they did find measurable residue. I also "knew" there were "no bomb plans" in Germany other than "reactor bombs" - which were patented! Yet a gun design turned up a couple of years ago. I am regularly wrong in these matters - but not because I overestimate what is likely to be true. Rather the reverse.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 6/14/2012 11:45:24 PM >

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 93

RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers - 6/13/2012 5:36:54 PM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

You don't need to justify yourself to those morons, El Cid. It was an interesting question.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 94

RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers - 6/13/2012 8:53:25 PM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

Nope, he don't. neither do you. Just wishing you joy of the day.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by JWE -- 6/13/2012 8:56:52 PM >

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 95

RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers - 6/13/2012 10:54:23 PM

SargeantTex

Posts: 420
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

Isnt this a forum for the worlds greatest Pacific War Simulation it seems it is turning into a political\alternate history Forum!!! a million words were just said that has nothing to do with WITP AE

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 96

RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers - 6/13/2012 11:20:53 PM

Mac67

Posts: 496
Joined: 3/7/2006
From: Essex, England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Nope, he don't. neither do you. Just wishing you joy of the day.

It never ceases to amuse how you are so quick to accuse others of acting immature and yet continue to act like a retarded 12 year old yourself. Stay classy.

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 97

RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers - 6/13/2012 11:42:50 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Diehl the Scumbag humping the leg of Cid the Liar. Quite the spectacle.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Mac67)

Post #: 98

RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers - 6/13/2012 11:59:59 PM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

Diehl the Scumbag humping the leg of Cid the Liar. Quite the spectacle.

Your presence here illustrates the fact that a thread can always deteriorate further.

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 6/14/2012 12:12:38 AM >

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 99

RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers - 6/14/2012 12:15:12 AM

mike scholl 1

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I thought the information might be of interest to a few modders or those interested in mod design (presumably those not interested would not be in this forum). I also thought that those who already know everything about the matter, or who believe I would always get everything wrong, might ignore such a thread - since things have been relatively quiet for a long time. Nevertheless, I think witpqs (what a handle!) may have a point about how to proceed with slightly less controversy? There are indeed problems with documentation - doubly so in English (since the original materials were not written in English) - and with the sheet time required to go to the primary level (MAGIC intercept xyz, blueprint abcd, etc) - not to mention that some of the critics want documents they can find in the local library - which pretty much limits one to books in English. All I attempted to do was establish that there is a foundation in the form of research and development - and that over time more and more dimensions of that have been revealed. Since no atomic bombs were dropped on Tinian, or San Francisco, or anywhere else the enemy might have chosen, clearly the chances of such a thing are low - and probably relegated to a later time if the war had lasted longer. My intent was to address a request for the possibility of a Japanese bomb in that time frame, and delivery systems for it - as well as to experiment with both code and non-coded solutions given reports of problems with trying to use the existing bomb. One reason the Allies have a kind not in the code slot is as a hedge - and as a control case - to measure the effects of a defined super conventional bomb. This isn't really different than the Uji bomb also found in RHS - which is an addempt to model a bw weapon actually used. Code has no provision for bw - so it is entirely experimental - and a compromise in some respects. These are techincal matters which ought to be fair game in this forum. I do not require anyone to believe there was a horserace to get the bomb first. But there was. The Day Man Lost - written by scholars (I learned last week from John Dower) even if not documented to scholarly standards - probably has the best summary English language account of that race as it was understood in the 1960s - when it was written. It does create the impression that research didn't get past the preliminary stages, but leaves no doubt there were reactors and good intelligence and remarkable theoretical understanding of fundamentals (better in some respects that existed anywhere else). In a hypothetical game world, it should be possible to build on that foundation given enough time and resources.

I do not believe in atomic warfare - particularly not on cities (which the game seems to require) - and note that US planning until 1945 was NOT to use them on cities (the first target was long planned to be Truk naval operating base). I also do not think dedicating a plane factory to making an atomic bomber is wise use of resources - and so it is a mistake to invest that way. But I think players should be able to do things I don't think are wise - for fun or because they believe passionately it is 'realistic.' Just as they should be able to build Shinano - as a battleship - or as a terrible carrier - in a historical scenario. Not because I recommend either.

I don't particularly worry about anyone who cannot keep things in reasonable perspective. Reasonable people with strong feelings are free to totally disregard what I say - even not to read it in the first place. And it is perfectly reasonable to say you are skeptical of what I say. But even I am regularly surprised by what comes out. I was "sure" there was no German atom bomb - to the extent I "knew" an expedition to the test site on Bornholm island could not measure anything. [I have been to ground zero of the US test - and flowers grow there - but my meter didn't read anything.] Yet I was wrong - and they did find measurable residue. I also "knew" there were "no bomb plans" in Germany other than "reactor bombs" - which were patented! Yet a gun design turned up a couple of years ago. I am regularly wrong in these matters - but not because I overestimate what is likely to be true. Rather the reverse.

What I still don't get is the concept of "an atomic bomber". The US didn't build "an atomic bomber", they built the B-29 long-ranged strategic bomber. A few were modified to carry atomic ordinance..., just as a few Lancasters were modified to carry "Tall Boys" or "Grand Slams"---but the modifications weren't that major and certainly didn't require a special production run, let alone a special factory.

So what's the point?

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 100

RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers - 6/14/2012 12:44:50 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_X-6

They're out there Mike.

_____________________________

(in reply to mike scholl 1)

Post #: 101

RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers - 6/14/2012 1:11:05 AM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

I realize I shouldn't have called Diehl a scumbag.

I should have called him a piece of **** assweasel with less right to be here than the lowest of the lowest Chinese spambots. Go die in a fire!

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 102

RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers - 6/14/2012 1:24:11 AM

khyberbill

Posts: 1941
Joined: 9/11/2007
From: new milford, ct
Status: offline

I saw the runway they built for this bird in Idaho when I was going to prototype school. Impressive. As an ex-nuclear plant operator, the last place I would want to be would be on a nuclear powered plane. Either the shielding would make it too heavy to be safe, or there would not be enough shielding to be safe! It is amazing that they even considered the concept. They actually built a facility in CA with a bunch of huge air storage tanks to simulate the flow of air through the reactor etc.

_____________________________

"Its a dog eat dog world Sammy and I am wearing Milkbone underwear" -Norm.

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 103

RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers - 6/14/2012 5:02:15 PM

mike scholl 1

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_X-6

They're out there Mike.

I know "atomic powered bombers" were proposed and tested..., but Cid is talking about planes to "drop" A-Bombs, and so was I. Maybe you should read the thread a bit more closely...

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 104

RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers - 6/14/2012 5:27:04 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

I know "atomic powered bombers" were proposed and tested..., but Cid is talking about planes to "drop" A-Bombs, and so was I. Maybe you should read the thread a bit more closely...

pffff.

Cid said alot of things......unfortunately most of it was off-topic. You said "Atomic Bomber" I found you one. It had an atomic reactor....thus "Atomic-Bomber"

It was a really really good idea too!

_____________________________

(in reply to mike scholl 1)

Post #: 105

RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers - 6/14/2012 5:28:22 PM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

It is amazing that they even considered the concept.

I completely agree. Funny though it's a lot more "doable" now than it was then.

Speaking of crazy, did you ever read anything on the Orion project? There's a really interedting read by George Dyson called "Project Orion: The True Story of America's Atomic Spaceship." Distilled, the idea was to propel a spaceship into the heavens riding the pressure wave of a series of ground and atmospheric nuclear detonations.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 106

RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers - 6/14/2012 5:56:18 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

I know "atomic powered bombers" were proposed and tested..., but Cid is talking about planes to "drop" A-Bombs, and so was I. Maybe you should read the thread a bit more closely...

pffff. Cid said alot of things......unfortunately most of it was off-topic. You said "Atomic Bomber" I found you one. It had an atomic reactor....thus "Atomic-Bomber"

It was a really really good idea too!

How about one that was made of atoms? That would be atomic.

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 107

RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers - 6/14/2012 6:32:21 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
How about one that was made of atoms? That would be atomic.

Good point. From a technical perspective you are quite correct. This reminds me of the time when Albert and I had a discussion about whether Trees dream.

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 108

RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers - 6/14/2012 6:36:31 PM

khyberbill

Posts: 1941
Joined: 9/11/2007
From: new milford, ct
Status: offline

quote:

This reminds me of the time when Albert and I had a discussion about whether Trees dream.

Were you smoking some leaves?

_____________________________

"Its a dog eat dog world Sammy and I am wearing Milkbone underwear" -Norm.

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 109

RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers - 6/14/2012 7:58:33 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
How about one that was made of atoms? That would be atomic.

Good point. From a technical perspective you are quite correct. This reminds me of the time when Albert and I had a discussion about whether Trees dream.

If you mean Treespider, I think he does. That's how he comes up with so many good ideas.

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 110

RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers - 6/14/2012 8:37:54 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: khyberbill

quote:

This reminds me of the time when Albert and I had a discussion about whether Trees dream.

Were you smoking some leaves?

no....but after reading Cid's 6000+ words I wanted too.......

_____________________________

(in reply to khyberbill)

Post #: 111

RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers - 6/14/2012 9:47:30 PM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: khyberbill

quote:

This reminds me of the time when Albert and I had a discussion about whether Trees dream.

Were you smoking some leaves?

no....but after reading Cid's 6000+ words I wanted too.......

My favorite is Michoacan, but that reddish stuff from Oaxaca ain't bad at all.

Funny thing about atomic bombers is that they are the same as regular bombers. You don't need an atomic bomber to deploy an atomic bomb. Heck, B-29 dropped a couple and B-52 likely dropped the equivalent in gravity bombs. Shoot .. if a Japanese plane could run an Ohka, it could drop a nuke.

There ain't no such thing as an atomic bomber. There is such a thing as a strategic penetrator, but that's a function of "how" it delivers its weapons, and says absolutely nothing about "what" weapons it's looking to deliver. Unless and until the development of cruise technology, all you got and all you ever could get (and all you ever will get) was a B-24/29 with increased range, speed, sexy looks, electronics, wtfo. Whether or not a plane carries atomic ordnance, is a function of the strategic/tactical imperitive. This is a brainless exercise.

It's only people who don't understand the simple fundamental practicalities of ordinary, everyday, physical mechanics, that make such wild and apocalyptic claims .. If it's "atomic" it must be beyond our (your) understanding (not beyond mine, because I understand more than you and know just enough to lie convincingly) .. Atomic is brainless. Anyone who takes a physics course in a real college, with real physics classes, has that one wired.

< Message edited by JWE -- 6/14/2012 9:59:41 PM >

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 112

RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers - 6/14/2012 10:43:57 PM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

Nope, Japan didn't need an atomic bomber; they had Yoshi Nakamura.

"Hey, Yoshi! How's it going there, Young Cadet? How is your training? I hear you are the star trainee of this year's course!"
-"Hai! Rikugun Chujo! I am honored by your interest!"
"Sit, sit, Young Cadet. Here, I am nothing but your neighbor at the sushi bar, we are friends, yes?" (tap, tap; eta momi, moto!) "So, Young Cadet, would you like some Hamachi sashimi, fresh from the Hawaiian Islands by one of our submarines, or some Toro? My friend Igurachi, behind the glass there, has some fresh barracuda that he is keeping for himself out back. Some of that could appear, with some pon sauce and radish and shaved onions .. yes?"
-"Hoh! Rikugun Chujo! I am again honored. What do you wish of me?"
"Ahh, Young Cadet, we wish you to fly a specific mission profile and turn on a specific switch at a specific point in your attack run."
-"Hoh! Rikugun Chujo! I am once again honored! But what's in it for me?"
"Ahh, Young Cadet, do you remember the Moist Flower you had occasion to pick from the garden last year in Ominato? She will change her name to Righteous Flow in your honor. And we can arrange things so you can have at least two days together; privately."
-"Hoh! Rikugun Chujo! I will do all you wish! Two days with Moist Flower? This is what dreams are made of!"
"Ahh, Young Cadet, mission profiles will be sent to your base. So nice to have you with us."

[ed]It is said that fifty-three years after his liberation he returned from the Golden Cloud, to take up once again the gauntlet of Heaven, to oppose the Order of Life and the gods who ordained it so. His followers had prayed for his return, though their prayers were sin. Prayer should not trouble one who has gone on to Nirvana, no matter what the circumstances of his going. The wearers of the saffron robe prayed, however, that He of the Sword, Manjusri, should come again among them, The Boddhisatva is said to have heard ...

< Message edited by JWE -- 6/14/2012 11:49:54 PM >

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 113

RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers - 6/14/2012 11:57:41 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SargeantTex

Isnt this a forum for the worlds greatest Pacific War Simulation it seems it is turning into a political\alternate history Forum!!! a million words were just said that has nothing to do with WITP AE

Surely this isn't correct. Surely the real war in the Pacific involved the first and only use of atomic bombs in history. And surely there was some concern with what the Axis were up to in that regard. Somewhere I have an official record about how Groves had reacted with "panic" to the reports about a German submarine (U-234) - which he in error called "U-235" - with an atomic cargo bound for Japan. [There is an entire USNI book on the matter, something like Germany's Last Mission to Japan by Joseph Mark Scalia, although he was not permitted to publish everything he learned about its cargo]
I believe the cargo was related to radiological weapons (developed by Germany for use on rockets and by Japan for use by aircraft) - rather than true atom bombs - but it is widely believed it was related to atomic bombs - and it appears the material may have ended in the US Hiroshima atomic bomb in fact!
[Gene Rutledge, my friend and neighbor in Anchorage, published his own book in which he says he is pretty sure this is the case: Hiroshima Bomb to Grand Peace - Library of Congress card LC-61158 - my original copy is autographed by the author] Given a game world that runs the war into 1946 (or according to the forums, potentially later) - surely use of such weapons by Japan was a possibility - particularly if Japan was not devastated by a successful strategic bombing campaign, or isolated by a successful mine warfare/submarine campaign.

(in reply to SargeantTex)

Post #: 114

RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers - 6/15/2012 2:25:26 AM

mjk428

Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I realize I shouldn't have called Diehl a scumbag.

I should have called him a piece of **** assweasel with less right to be here than the lowest of the lowest Chinese spambots. Go die in a fire!

He has as much right to be here as you do. Someday, although I doubt it, you may get that through your thick skull.

_____________________________

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 115

RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers - 6/15/2012 2:43:42 AM

oldman45

Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline

quote:

particularly if Japan was not devastated by a successful strategic bombing campaign, or isolated by a successful mine warfare/submarine campaign.

That right there Cid is the weakness to any argument that Japan could develop a weapon.

_____________________________

(in reply to mjk428)

Post #: 116

RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers - 6/15/2012 8:46:57 AM

sandman455

Posts: 209
Joined: 7/5/2011
From: 20 yrs ago - SDO -> med down, w/BC glasses on
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_X-6

They're out there Mike.

I know "atomic powered bombers" were proposed and tested..., but Cid is talking about planes to "drop" A-Bombs, and so was I. Maybe you should read the thread a bit more closely...

Not exactly WWII aircraft but here a few examples of aircraft designed from the start to be nuclear bombers:

A-3J (later redesignated the A-5) Vigilante - utterly useless in every other role other than looking fantastic on the flight deck. Some say it was doomed by the Polaris missile, but I'm sure all those who struggled to bring the huge bird onto the flight deck in one piece might of had a part. You could say it's stunning looks and performance gave it a few more years as a RA-5. Yet a few more ramp strikes took care of that.

A-4D-1 Skyhawk - incredibly useful design. Ed Heinemann got it right and the plane could do almost anything which is remarkable considering it was designed only to deliver a "special" tactical device on it's centerline hardpoint. It would later drop iron bombs with the best thanks to it's amazing bombsight. It could carry a buddy store for tanking duties, and easy handle the air to air mission as well. The two seat version made a fine trainer. Incredible aircraft.

B-58 Hustler - another utterly useless aircraft that simply had no peer when it came to looking good on the flight line. Looking marvelous and making a big boom - those were it's two roles. It was done in by the air to ground missile that didn't care how good looking it was.

As for making any bomber a nuclear bomber - not really. The B29's were modified extensively due to the weapon. However, the real difference wasn't the airframe but rather the aircrew. They were always hand picked and had very special training. This was far more a limitation than anything related to your delivery platform for all those who have special weapons.

And I'd bet the farm that nothing has changed in 67 years, but what do I know.

_____________________________

Gary S (USN 1320, 1985-1993)
AOCS 1985, VT10 1985-86, VT86 1986, VS41 1986-87
VS32 1987-90 (NSO/NWTO, deployed w/CV-66, CVN-71)
VS27 1990-91 (NATOPS/Safety)
SFWSLANT 1991-93 (AGM-84 All platforms, S-3 A/B systems)

(in reply to mike scholl 1)

Post #: 117

RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers - 6/15/2012 8:52:57 AM

sandman455

Posts: 209
Joined: 7/5/2011
From: 20 yrs ago - SDO -> med down, w/BC glasses on
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: YankeeAirRat

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf

japanese could have delivered a radiological or biological strike, but a fission device was beyond their capability

Biological yes, Radiological NO. Simply put they did not have ready access to Uranium. Of the six know deposits of Uranium at the time of WW2 all but two sat in Allied control, the two that didn't were in Occupied Europe. There is conflicting and circumstantial evidence that the Germans tried to ship processed Uranium to Japan but the submarines disappeared or as in the case that most of the Tin-Foil Historians tie thier beliefs to the U-boat left before the processed material was loaded and then surrendered to Allied Forces a few days after V-E Day.

I was a little worried by this one since I hate to think I was working on a mod that needed even more fantasy than I had budgeted. But after some research it appears that uranium deposits aren't as rare as you think.

Japan actually had a couple that were mapped out in the 1950's and mined by the 60's for use in their own reactors. Given their location on Honshu, surrounded by other mining operations that had been in operation for centuries, it is probably safe to assume that it was not a startling new discovery. The northern part of Korea also has/had some good uranium deposits. These were known about prior to the war, but were never mined as far as we know.

As for finding and exploiting the uranium deposits, not hard at all. Indeed, Uranium 238 is more common than silver, gold and even tin. Getting enough uranium ore to support an enrichment process is just a matter of effort. Getting the enrichment process up and running to come up with enough U235 - pure fantasy. My guess is that they would have needed a coordinated effort and a good 3-4 year head start to have a chance. I can deal with that.

_____________________________

(in reply to YankeeAirRat)

Post #: 118

RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers - 6/15/2012 5:58:06 PM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

B-58 Hustler - another utterly useless aircraft that simply had no peer when it came to looking good on the flight line. Looking marvelous and making a big boom - those were it's two roles.

In fairness to the B-58, it was a perfect strategic nuclear penetrator for its day and age. But you are correct, it had no real use as a conventional bomber. The fuel tank actually sits underneath the bomb bay. I suppose you could fly it without the drop tank, but all you have is a fast short range conventional bomber that could not carry enough ordnance to matter.

SAMs made most bombers obsolete for the nuclear role, but we still in the USAF operate bombers designed to go in low and fast to deliver nuke payloads. The B1-B for example.

I agree with your assesment of the aesthetics. The B-58 is a beautiful plane and also kind of terrifying when you see it up close and realize its only purpose was to unleash hell on earth.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 119

RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers - 6/15/2012 6:09:51 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

He has as much right to be here as you do. Someday, although I doubt it, you may get that through your thick skull.

wrong. No-one has a "right" to be on any private company's website, or a personal website. That includes your home base where i know at least one outspoken person has been banned. While it is ultimately up to matrix who is allowed the 'priviledge' of accessing this forum, Terminus and others are within their rights to point out Troll Diehl's agenda to the for being here to the unwary......which has nothing to do with AE much less scenario design and modding. You are exercising your "right" playing cheerleader. And so it goes until Matrix says otherwise.

_____________________________

(in reply to mjk428)

Post #: 120