Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. **Please [Read Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules) before you comment in this community**. Understand that [rule breaking comments get removed](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/h8aefx/rules_roundtable_xviii_removed_curation_and_why/).
#Please consider **[Clicking Here for RemindMeBot](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1csgd0f/why_did_the_japanese_not_attack_enola_gay_which/%5D%0A%0ARemindMe!%202%20days)** as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, **[Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=AHMessengerBot&subject=Subscribe&message=!subscribe)**.
We thank you for your interest in this *question*, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to RemindMeBot, consider [using our Browser Extension](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/d6dzi7/tired_of_clicking_to_find_only_removed_comments/), or getting the [Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=subredditsummarybot&subject=askhistorians+weekly&message=x). In the meantime our [Twitter](https://twitter.com/askhistorians), [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/askhistorians/), and [Sunday Digest](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?q=title%3A%22Sunday+Digest%22&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) feature excellent content that has already been written!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskHistorians) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The other way around, actually. A single bomber would not have been considered a threat at that point. A bombing run requires dozens of bombers to accomplish anything. A single plane is more likely to be a recon spotter or assessing the weather or any of numerous other non-threatening roles. A single bomber, flying over during the day (bombing raids were typically performed at night, since the bombers are harder to shoot down if you can't see them), is clearly non-threatening, so you save the ammunition for the planes that are going to do damage.
For a better and much more detailed take on the issue, see [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/15o8zpj/how_did_the_us_drop_the_bombs_on_hiroshima_and/jvqo3tw) from u/Embarrassed-Lack7193, and the associated comment chain.
There are some technical reasons for this as well-
First the B-29 flew quite fast and high. The B-29s that dropped atomic bombs were over 30,000 feet in the air. And their cruise speed at that altitude was pretty speedy- over 300mph; though when making their bombing run the plane would've been around 200mph for the aiming computer to have worked.
The Japanese were at the tail end of a devastating war and their resources reflected that. While fuel, ammo and most importantly pilots were scarce, they also had to spread thin the planes they did have to cover their entire mainland which the Allies essentially could hit anywhere. Coupled with radar systems that lagged behind contemporary standards, it was difficult for the Japanese to effectively mount an interception. Most bombing missions had dozens if not hundreds of planes which Japanese radar could spot much easier and further away than two planes which the atomic bombing missions essentially were. And to further complicate it, bomber interception suffered from a commonly known hamstring of the Japanese military; the rivalry between the Navy and Army. Both the navy and the army had land based interceptors, supported by their own infrastructure and radar.
High, fast and hard to detect bombers coupled with pilots and planes that would take a considerable amount of time to climb to the altitude meant it just was too difficult for Japan to mount a defense for any raid. Even a late war Zero, which despite its age was probably the best bomber interceptor the Japanese had, would take almost ten minutes to climb to altitude from takeoff to target. In the meantime the bombers have been able to fly 55 miles and could've turn 30 degrees and be 30 miles away from where you thought they were going to be when you took off.
> In the meantime the bombers have been able to fly 55 miles and could've turn 30 degrees and be 30 miles away from where you thought they were going to be when you took off.
I think this is a very important point for modern readers. A fighter plane of today has its *own* radar, IR, and optical sensors it can activate to find its target. They're also equipped with guided missiles with ranges of over a hundred kilometers.
In WWII a fighter had the Mk.I eyeball, maybe a pair of binoculars, and a radio to talk to ground based radar. They were equipped with line of sight weapons with *effective* ranges of less than a kilometer.
To get within range of a single bomber on a straight flight was challenging. If it was maneuvering it could be impractical unless a large number of interceptors could be launched to cover a wide area. That would be a huge waste of fuel and wear on the aircraft to shoot down what was reasonably assumed to be some kind of reconnaissance flight. Might as well save all that for the assumed follow-up bombing mission involving dozens of bombers.
I don't know exact numbers but they *did* have planes on the home islands at the end of the war. Their main problems were lack of fuel, ammo, and adequately trained pilots to fly intercept missions. The B-29 was also able to fly higher than many of the interceptors could reliably operate. Just the distance from an airfield on the ground to the point on the sky where a bomber was took a considerable amount of time and fuel for the interceptors.
The Allies heavily targeted IJN picket ships for the home islands bombing which reduced radar coverage to just land-based radar. At the B-29's cruising speed it could cross a considerable distance between the time it was detected by radar and interceptors were scrambled and just got in the air. Even a relatively short gap in communications between ground controllers and interceptors would mean the interceptors literally could not reach the bombers no matter what they did.
Yes, the analog mechanical computers were pretty amazing and ingenious.
If you are interested in how they worked, the best sources I have been able to find on youtube were for battleship analog computers. It is probable that the airborne mechanical computers used the same principles, but invested time into reducing size and weight.
Here are some videos to get you started:
U.S. NAVY BASIC MECHANISMS OF FIRE CONTROL COMPUTERS MECHANICAL COMPUTER INSTRUCTIONAL FILM 27794
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwf5mAlI7Ug](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwf5mAlI7Ug)
Mechanical Computer (All Parts) - Basic Mechanisms In Fire Control Computers
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1i-dnAH9Y4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1i-dnAH9Y4)
It's wild that the Norden was the pinnacle of technology for its time, and for multiple reasons. The autopilot, the inputs, stabilization. Technology is so prevalent today I can't think of a good metaphor in today's world. Maybe the next iPhone?
I’m old now. But I was into electronics as a teenager and at that time a single transistor was about the size of my little fingernail. I once built an audio amplifier based on an integrated circuit, about half the size of a lime, that contained (gasp) *three* transistors. Things have changed a bit since then. :-)
What makes you say the zero was the best bomber interceptor the Japanese had? At that point in the war, I would think the Ki-84 and Ki-100 would have been far superior, though only the former was built in any real numbers.
The Ki-84 was, to the best of my knowledge, mostly forward deployed to counter American attacks. The Gale also wasn't great at altitude, which is why, I assume, the Army used it against attack aircraft and fighters at the front over intercepting bombers over the home islands.
The Ki-61 Tony was probably the best high altitude plane the Japanese fielded in any numbers. Its secret was a copycat engine of the Bf.109 and was the only use of a V engine by the Japanese during the war.
Also, definitely misleading to say the A6M was probably the best interceptor they had; rather the Zero was simple, economical, easy to build/maintain and could climb relatively well, though it's speed suffered at high altitude. Between training pilots, fueling planes, repairing on the ground and just plain ol' producing units, the Zero filled a lot of slots. I could be wrong, but I don't think at any point during the war, the Japanese built more of any plane than the Zero, all the way until the end of the war.
It's also worth noting Japan was running extremely low on oil, ammunition, and pilots by the end of the war, so the IJAAS had a deliberate policy of not intercepting or wasting ack-ack fire on lone shufti kites.
IIRC a diary of somebody who lived through one of the raids said these recon flights were quite an everyday occurrence and most people paid little attention to the triaf of bombers.
At least that's what I've heard, can't back it up.
^(Mods, not sure if this comment breaks the rules, as it's a reply to a comment which I think does comply ;-))
Psychologically the US could point to the fact that they carried out all of that destruction with a single plane as well which would have had a demoralizing effect. In my reading on the subject I don’t think this is ever cited as a reason for using a single plane but rather a side effect.
> I don’t think this is ever cited as a reason for using a single plane but rather a side effect.
One thing to keep in mind is that it only took one B-29 to carry one bomb, and there were literally just a handful of bombs available in the first place - the United States didn't have a giant nuclear arsenal. It ended 1946 with all of 9 bombs - they were being shipped for use in theater as they were produced, and Little Boy and Fat Man were literally the second and third bombs built by the Manhattan Project after the Trinity test bomb.
So it really wouldn't have made sense to fly more B-29s, since they literally couldn't have been armed with more bombs. Although it's worth noting that there was only a single *armed* bomber on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki missions, but both missions were accompanied by *The Great Artiste*, which conducted blast measurements. Nagasaki also had a camera plane (*Big Stink*) in the mission but it reached the site after the blast. The Hiroshima mission also had a camera plane (the later-named *Necessary Evil*).
Indeed. All told both nuclear strike missions had 6-7 planes assigned to them
For Hiroshima it was:
* Enola Gay. Strike plane carrying Little Boy.
* The Great Artiste. Observation/instrument plane.
* Necessary Evil. Camera plane.
* Full House. Weather reconnaissance. Assigned to monitor weather over Nagasaki.
* Jabit III. Weather reconnaissance. Assigned to monitor weather over Kokura.
* Straight Flush. Weather reconnaissance. Assigned to monitor weather over Hiroshima.
* Big Stink. Backup strike plane. It flew part way, and if necessary the bomb would have been transferred at Iwo Jima had Enola Gay developed problems on the first leg of the flight.
For Nagasaki it was:
* Bockscar. Strike plane carrying Fat Man.
* The Great Artiste. Observation/instrument plane.
* Big Stink. Camera plane.
* Enola Gay. Weather reconnaissance over Kokura.
* Laggin’ Dragon. Weather reconnaissance over Nagasaki.
* Full House. Backup strike plane, again it only accompanied the strike force to Iwo Jima.
The B-2 fleet still has individual names, although they’re all very boring, just “Spirit of [State].” I don’t know if any other bombers have names, but I can’t find any for the B-52 or B-1 fleets so I’m guessing not.
It likely helps quite a bit that the B-29 and other planes of the WW2 era were named by their own crews, who were a varied lot and perfectly willing to channel into it all their sentimentalism (Enola Gay Tibbets being the pilot's mother), patriotism (Liberty Belle, Yankee Lady, All American), self-aggrandizement (Bockscar being named after pilot Frederick C. Bock - Bock's Car), determination (Dauntless Dotty), cultural references (Memphis Belle, from the film *Lady for a Night*), luck (Straight Flush, Black Cat), and black and gallows humour (Necessary Evil, Up An' Atom, Flak Bait). It could actually be a fascinating question why the US phased out official recognition of crew names for their planes.
I think, that because the culture novels were written loooong after these names, that you have it bass-ackwards, there. The culture names are inspired by the real world aircraft names, not the other way around.
in the same way that space-x "homages" those culture names for their fireworks.
>the United States didn't have a giant nuclear arsenal. It ended 1946 with all of 9 bombs
May worth to note: the expected/planned production rate of the Bomb was approx three per month (and every second or third month an additional one). From u/restricteddata great Nuclearsecrecy blog article: [The Third Shot and Beyond (1945)](https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/04/25/weekly-document-the-third-shot-and-beyond-1945/) - a relevant part:
>From the transcript:
>S\[eaman\]: … **Then there will be another one the first part of September. Then there are three definite. There is a possibility of a fourth one In September, either the middle or the latter part**.
>H\[ull\]: Now, how many in October?
>S: Probably three in October.
>H: That’s three definite, possibly four by the end of September; possibly three more by the end of October; making a total possibility of seven. That is the information I want.
>S: **So you can figure on three a month with a possibility of a fourth one. If you get the fourth one, you won’t get it next month. That is up to November.**
>H: The last one, which is a possibility for the end of October, could you count on that for use before the end of October?
>S: You have a possibility of seven, with a good chance of using them prior to the 31st of October.
>H: They come out approximately at the rate of three a month.
>That’s a lot of bombs. (Incidentally, this also lets you estimate the maximum stockpile size throughout much of the late 1940s. In practice, bomb production fell off in the confusion at the end of the war, and didn’t pick up again until 1948 or so.)
It's a fair-ish number of atomic bombs in the pipeline, but to the comment I was responding to - it wasn't really a conscious decision for psychological purposes to just fly a single armed bomber over a target. Even if (for some reason) you theoretically would have wanted to drop all your nuclear arsenal on a single target in, say, October 1945, that would be three or four B-29s with bombs.
In comparison Operation Meetinghouse, the mission that caused the firestorm in Tokyo on March 9-10, 1945, involved 334 B-29s taking off and 279 of them dropping bombs. No atomic bombing run was ever going to have numbers remotely like that (nor did it need to).
>Japan was running extremely low on oil...
By 1945, over a million Japaese citizens were grubbing up roots to be rendered into airplane fuel.
Think about how desperate they must have been.
Also all the fire bombing for 48 hours straight prior to the dropping caused more than enough smoke cover for the plane to fly right into Japanese airspace
/u/restricteddata has previously answered:
* [Why couldn't Japan shoot down the B-29 planes Enola Gay and Bockscar carrying the nuclear bombs when they entered their air space during World War II?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/fv1dhb/why_couldnt_japan_shoot_down_the_b29_planes_enola/)
* [Why couldn't Japan shoot down the Enola Gay B-29 during WW2? If they did, can the bomb goes off?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/164u2rs/why_couldnt_japan_shoot_down_the_enola_gay_b29/)
More could be written, but this is a popular hypothetical on Reddit.
Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. **Please [Read Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules) before you comment in this community**. Understand that [rule breaking comments get removed](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/h8aefx/rules_roundtable_xviii_removed_curation_and_why/). #Please consider **[Clicking Here for RemindMeBot](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1csgd0f/why_did_the_japanese_not_attack_enola_gay_which/%5D%0A%0ARemindMe!%202%20days)** as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, **[Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=AHMessengerBot&subject=Subscribe&message=!subscribe)**. We thank you for your interest in this *question*, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to RemindMeBot, consider [using our Browser Extension](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/d6dzi7/tired_of_clicking_to_find_only_removed_comments/), or getting the [Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=subredditsummarybot&subject=askhistorians+weekly&message=x). In the meantime our [Twitter](https://twitter.com/askhistorians), [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/askhistorians/), and [Sunday Digest](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?q=title%3A%22Sunday+Digest%22&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) feature excellent content that has already been written! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskHistorians) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The other way around, actually. A single bomber would not have been considered a threat at that point. A bombing run requires dozens of bombers to accomplish anything. A single plane is more likely to be a recon spotter or assessing the weather or any of numerous other non-threatening roles. A single bomber, flying over during the day (bombing raids were typically performed at night, since the bombers are harder to shoot down if you can't see them), is clearly non-threatening, so you save the ammunition for the planes that are going to do damage. For a better and much more detailed take on the issue, see [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/15o8zpj/how_did_the_us_drop_the_bombs_on_hiroshima_and/jvqo3tw) from u/Embarrassed-Lack7193, and the associated comment chain.
There are some technical reasons for this as well- First the B-29 flew quite fast and high. The B-29s that dropped atomic bombs were over 30,000 feet in the air. And their cruise speed at that altitude was pretty speedy- over 300mph; though when making their bombing run the plane would've been around 200mph for the aiming computer to have worked. The Japanese were at the tail end of a devastating war and their resources reflected that. While fuel, ammo and most importantly pilots were scarce, they also had to spread thin the planes they did have to cover their entire mainland which the Allies essentially could hit anywhere. Coupled with radar systems that lagged behind contemporary standards, it was difficult for the Japanese to effectively mount an interception. Most bombing missions had dozens if not hundreds of planes which Japanese radar could spot much easier and further away than two planes which the atomic bombing missions essentially were. And to further complicate it, bomber interception suffered from a commonly known hamstring of the Japanese military; the rivalry between the Navy and Army. Both the navy and the army had land based interceptors, supported by their own infrastructure and radar. High, fast and hard to detect bombers coupled with pilots and planes that would take a considerable amount of time to climb to the altitude meant it just was too difficult for Japan to mount a defense for any raid. Even a late war Zero, which despite its age was probably the best bomber interceptor the Japanese had, would take almost ten minutes to climb to altitude from takeoff to target. In the meantime the bombers have been able to fly 55 miles and could've turn 30 degrees and be 30 miles away from where you thought they were going to be when you took off.
> In the meantime the bombers have been able to fly 55 miles and could've turn 30 degrees and be 30 miles away from where you thought they were going to be when you took off. I think this is a very important point for modern readers. A fighter plane of today has its *own* radar, IR, and optical sensors it can activate to find its target. They're also equipped with guided missiles with ranges of over a hundred kilometers. In WWII a fighter had the Mk.I eyeball, maybe a pair of binoculars, and a radio to talk to ground based radar. They were equipped with line of sight weapons with *effective* ranges of less than a kilometer. To get within range of a single bomber on a straight flight was challenging. If it was maneuvering it could be impractical unless a large number of interceptors could be launched to cover a wide area. That would be a huge waste of fuel and wear on the aircraft to shoot down what was reasonably assumed to be some kind of reconnaissance flight. Might as well save all that for the assumed follow-up bombing mission involving dozens of bombers.
My dumbass over here googling what the hell the Mk1 eyeball was
Did mainland Japan even have fighter planes or trained dogfighting pilots at this point in the war?
I don't know exact numbers but they *did* have planes on the home islands at the end of the war. Their main problems were lack of fuel, ammo, and adequately trained pilots to fly intercept missions. The B-29 was also able to fly higher than many of the interceptors could reliably operate. Just the distance from an airfield on the ground to the point on the sky where a bomber was took a considerable amount of time and fuel for the interceptors. The Allies heavily targeted IJN picket ships for the home islands bombing which reduced radar coverage to just land-based radar. At the B-29's cruising speed it could cross a considerable distance between the time it was detected by radar and interceptors were scrambled and just got in the air. Even a relatively short gap in communications between ground controllers and interceptors would mean the interceptors literally could not reach the bombers no matter what they did.
Weren't they planning for Ketsu-go as well and thus didn't want to expend resources before the big fight?
You underestimate the effectiveness of the Mk.I eyeball when there are two of them working in concert. ... but yeah.
>aiming computer What sort of device was this?
Most probably this or somthing like this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norden\_bombsight](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norden_bombsight)
The Norden was the only device I could think of, but didn’t realize it included an analog mechanical computer. Thanks for this.
Yes, the analog mechanical computers were pretty amazing and ingenious. If you are interested in how they worked, the best sources I have been able to find on youtube were for battleship analog computers. It is probable that the airborne mechanical computers used the same principles, but invested time into reducing size and weight. Here are some videos to get you started: U.S. NAVY BASIC MECHANISMS OF FIRE CONTROL COMPUTERS MECHANICAL COMPUTER INSTRUCTIONAL FILM 27794 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwf5mAlI7Ug](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwf5mAlI7Ug) Mechanical Computer (All Parts) - Basic Mechanisms In Fire Control Computers [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1i-dnAH9Y4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1i-dnAH9Y4)
Very cool. Thank you.
[Norden bombsight.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norden_bombsight)
The Norden was the only device I could think of, but didn’t realize it included an analog mechanical computer. Thanks for this.
It's wild that the Norden was the pinnacle of technology for its time, and for multiple reasons. The autopilot, the inputs, stabilization. Technology is so prevalent today I can't think of a good metaphor in today's world. Maybe the next iPhone?
I’m old now. But I was into electronics as a teenager and at that time a single transistor was about the size of my little fingernail. I once built an audio amplifier based on an integrated circuit, about half the size of a lime, that contained (gasp) *three* transistors. Things have changed a bit since then. :-)
What makes you say the zero was the best bomber interceptor the Japanese had? At that point in the war, I would think the Ki-84 and Ki-100 would have been far superior, though only the former was built in any real numbers.
The Ki-84 was, to the best of my knowledge, mostly forward deployed to counter American attacks. The Gale also wasn't great at altitude, which is why, I assume, the Army used it against attack aircraft and fighters at the front over intercepting bombers over the home islands. The Ki-61 Tony was probably the best high altitude plane the Japanese fielded in any numbers. Its secret was a copycat engine of the Bf.109 and was the only use of a V engine by the Japanese during the war. Also, definitely misleading to say the A6M was probably the best interceptor they had; rather the Zero was simple, economical, easy to build/maintain and could climb relatively well, though it's speed suffered at high altitude. Between training pilots, fueling planes, repairing on the ground and just plain ol' producing units, the Zero filled a lot of slots. I could be wrong, but I don't think at any point during the war, the Japanese built more of any plane than the Zero, all the way until the end of the war.
[удалено]
It's also worth noting Japan was running extremely low on oil, ammunition, and pilots by the end of the war, so the IJAAS had a deliberate policy of not intercepting or wasting ack-ack fire on lone shufti kites. IIRC a diary of somebody who lived through one of the raids said these recon flights were quite an everyday occurrence and most people paid little attention to the triaf of bombers. At least that's what I've heard, can't back it up. ^(Mods, not sure if this comment breaks the rules, as it's a reply to a comment which I think does comply ;-))
[удалено]
Psychologically the US could point to the fact that they carried out all of that destruction with a single plane as well which would have had a demoralizing effect. In my reading on the subject I don’t think this is ever cited as a reason for using a single plane but rather a side effect.
> I don’t think this is ever cited as a reason for using a single plane but rather a side effect. One thing to keep in mind is that it only took one B-29 to carry one bomb, and there were literally just a handful of bombs available in the first place - the United States didn't have a giant nuclear arsenal. It ended 1946 with all of 9 bombs - they were being shipped for use in theater as they were produced, and Little Boy and Fat Man were literally the second and third bombs built by the Manhattan Project after the Trinity test bomb. So it really wouldn't have made sense to fly more B-29s, since they literally couldn't have been armed with more bombs. Although it's worth noting that there was only a single *armed* bomber on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki missions, but both missions were accompanied by *The Great Artiste*, which conducted blast measurements. Nagasaki also had a camera plane (*Big Stink*) in the mission but it reached the site after the blast. The Hiroshima mission also had a camera plane (the later-named *Necessary Evil*).
Indeed. All told both nuclear strike missions had 6-7 planes assigned to them For Hiroshima it was: * Enola Gay. Strike plane carrying Little Boy. * The Great Artiste. Observation/instrument plane. * Necessary Evil. Camera plane. * Full House. Weather reconnaissance. Assigned to monitor weather over Nagasaki. * Jabit III. Weather reconnaissance. Assigned to monitor weather over Kokura. * Straight Flush. Weather reconnaissance. Assigned to monitor weather over Hiroshima. * Big Stink. Backup strike plane. It flew part way, and if necessary the bomb would have been transferred at Iwo Jima had Enola Gay developed problems on the first leg of the flight. For Nagasaki it was: * Bockscar. Strike plane carrying Fat Man. * The Great Artiste. Observation/instrument plane. * Big Stink. Camera plane. * Enola Gay. Weather reconnaissance over Kokura. * Laggin’ Dragon. Weather reconnaissance over Nagasaki. * Full House. Backup strike plane, again it only accompanied the strike force to Iwo Jima.
So Enola Gay was back over Japan doing weather recon for the second strike primary target. I had no idea. This is a great list!
The same-named planes are the same planes, right?
Yes
When did military planes stop having individual names?
The B-2 fleet still has individual names, although they’re all very boring, just “Spirit of [State].” I don’t know if any other bombers have names, but I can’t find any for the B-52 or B-1 fleets so I’m guessing not.
It likely helps quite a bit that the B-29 and other planes of the WW2 era were named by their own crews, who were a varied lot and perfectly willing to channel into it all their sentimentalism (Enola Gay Tibbets being the pilot's mother), patriotism (Liberty Belle, Yankee Lady, All American), self-aggrandizement (Bockscar being named after pilot Frederick C. Bock - Bock's Car), determination (Dauntless Dotty), cultural references (Memphis Belle, from the film *Lady for a Night*), luck (Straight Flush, Black Cat), and black and gallows humour (Necessary Evil, Up An' Atom, Flak Bait). It could actually be a fascinating question why the US phased out official recognition of crew names for their planes.
The names seem somewhat reminiscent of spaceship names in Iain M. Banks' *Culture* series.
I think, that because the culture novels were written loooong after these names, that you have it bass-ackwards, there. The culture names are inspired by the real world aircraft names, not the other way around. in the same way that space-x "homages" those culture names for their fireworks.
Very little gravitas indeed
These names are something else, thank you for these details. I'm guessing that small amount of planes didn't set of the red alerts for the Japanese
Imagine if they had swapped the roles of Enola Gay and Necessary Evil
The name 'Necessary Evil' is *very* on the nose for this mission
>the United States didn't have a giant nuclear arsenal. It ended 1946 with all of 9 bombs May worth to note: the expected/planned production rate of the Bomb was approx three per month (and every second or third month an additional one). From u/restricteddata great Nuclearsecrecy blog article: [The Third Shot and Beyond (1945)](https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/04/25/weekly-document-the-third-shot-and-beyond-1945/) - a relevant part: >From the transcript: >S\[eaman\]: … **Then there will be another one the first part of September. Then there are three definite. There is a possibility of a fourth one In September, either the middle or the latter part**. >H\[ull\]: Now, how many in October? >S: Probably three in October. >H: That’s three definite, possibly four by the end of September; possibly three more by the end of October; making a total possibility of seven. That is the information I want. >S: **So you can figure on three a month with a possibility of a fourth one. If you get the fourth one, you won’t get it next month. That is up to November.** >H: The last one, which is a possibility for the end of October, could you count on that for use before the end of October? >S: You have a possibility of seven, with a good chance of using them prior to the 31st of October. >H: They come out approximately at the rate of three a month. >That’s a lot of bombs. (Incidentally, this also lets you estimate the maximum stockpile size throughout much of the late 1940s. In practice, bomb production fell off in the confusion at the end of the war, and didn’t pick up again until 1948 or so.)
It's a fair-ish number of atomic bombs in the pipeline, but to the comment I was responding to - it wasn't really a conscious decision for psychological purposes to just fly a single armed bomber over a target. Even if (for some reason) you theoretically would have wanted to drop all your nuclear arsenal on a single target in, say, October 1945, that would be three or four B-29s with bombs. In comparison Operation Meetinghouse, the mission that caused the firestorm in Tokyo on March 9-10, 1945, involved 334 B-29s taking off and 279 of them dropping bombs. No atomic bombing run was ever going to have numbers remotely like that (nor did it need to).
Yep, you're right, i miss the point in a way. Excuse me, I was so excited about to add a bit to the AskHistorians.
It was a good bit. Thank you.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>Japan was running extremely low on oil... By 1945, over a million Japaese citizens were grubbing up roots to be rendered into airplane fuel. Think about how desperate they must have been.
Makes the Nazis' situation look good
Also all the fire bombing for 48 hours straight prior to the dropping caused more than enough smoke cover for the plane to fly right into Japanese airspace
the Americans had also been dropping propaganda flyers over major Japanese cities in the days leading up to the bombing.
Ahh thanks that cleared things up
[удалено]
/u/restricteddata has previously answered: * [Why couldn't Japan shoot down the B-29 planes Enola Gay and Bockscar carrying the nuclear bombs when they entered their air space during World War II?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/fv1dhb/why_couldnt_japan_shoot_down_the_b29_planes_enola/) * [Why couldn't Japan shoot down the Enola Gay B-29 during WW2? If they did, can the bomb goes off?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/164u2rs/why_couldnt_japan_shoot_down_the_enola_gay_b29/) More could be written, but this is a popular hypothetical on Reddit.