July 18, 2009
Posted by: GreyDuck at July 18, 2009 05:57 PM (o5Lvb)
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at July 18, 2009 06:32 PM (+rSRq)
Posted by: toad at July 18, 2009 06:52 PM (uUdYd)
Of course, a different potential answer to this could have been "Go jump in a lake."
Just what kind of suggestions, about what, are you looking for.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at July 18, 2009 07:01 PM (+rSRq)
(The "What If" post I was working on pretty much fell through, much to my consternation... too many variables in this one)
Posted by: Wonderduck at July 18, 2009 08:27 PM (ZpwKm)
Ah. Then for "What if's" this post may inspire you.
I guess I would phrase it this way: In what at least semi-plausible scenario could the ME-262 actually have substantially affected the outcome of WWII?
(My own opinion is "there are none" but others may not agree with that. So suppose we discount the general answer that "If the war in Europe were still going on in August of 1945, the first A-bomb would have been dropped on Berlin" and go from there.)
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at July 18, 2009 09:33 PM (+rSRq)
Posted by: JP Gibb at July 19, 2009 07:55 AM (en+Q1)
What if Go Nagai had directed Neon Genesis Evangelion?
What if Satoshi Kon had directed Lucky Star?
What if Haruhi Suzumiya had been made a decade earlier, and Megumi Hayashibara had been cast in the lead role?
Would anyone survive?
Posted by: Pixy Misa at July 19, 2009 08:11 AM (PiXy!)
Well, so much for that post.
Posted by: Wonderduck at July 19, 2009 10:31 AM (ZpwKm)
As penance: If Japan had a heavy bomber comparable to the B-29, could we have won the Pacific theater?
Posted by: JP Gibb at July 19, 2009 11:08 AM (en+Q1)
Posted by: toad at July 19, 2009 07:13 PM (uUdYd)
Posted by: The Brickmuppet at July 19, 2009 07:35 PM (Vn+9Y)
They turned out to be mos' unsuitable for attacking vessels at sea, despite pre-war claims to the contrary. And as far as supporting attack operations, there simply weren't any Pacific island targets that Japan failed to take because of on-land defenses (if we discount New Guinea, and that was just jungle attrition.)
The nastiest use of them would have been against US beachheads or airfields (not that Henderson Field would have been an easy target, but you wouldn't have to hit it a whole lot...)
If anything, the diversion of scarce pilots and manufacturing resources into heavy bombers probably would have weakened Japanese air assets overall, and the fuel situation in mid-1944 to the end of the war pretty much precluded large-scale bomber operations anyway.
Without the ability to get air bases within range of US centers of production (many of which were inconveniently located thousands of miles EAST of the West Coast), there's not really any suitable strategic bombing targets for Japan to hit.
Mentioning the fuel situation brings up a good "what if", I think. We know that the Japanese had next to no antisubmarine warfare units, despite having what were arguably the finest destroyers in the world. How much difference would it have made if the Japanese had pulled some of those destroyers back for convoy duty? (Could they have done it, though? The morale effect on the companies of those destroyers would have been disastrous - even if the Naval Staff had appreciated the need, the crews would not have taken it well...)
If Go Nagai had directed Evangelion, it would have been made of win and God, with an extra side helping of holy crap!
Posted by: Avatar at July 20, 2009 02:28 AM (vGfoR)
Late in the war, they could have used heavy bombers against Iwo, and in particular against the American ground operations on Luzon and Okinawa.
But by that point the war was essentially lost for Japan; it was just a matter of time and expense. I can't see a B-29 equivalent making any game-changing difference before that.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at July 20, 2009 10:45 AM (+rSRq)
47 queries taking 0.143 seconds, 233 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.