Pilot of the Enola Gay: Paul Tibbets

[Murdoughnut]

That is exactly why the terrorists continue to win. Until we get the resolve to take the battle to every last man, woman and child, we will be vulnerable.

Difference between that generation and many in ours is that they understood what needed to be done to bring the enemy to absolute submission. We just kiss their ass instead.

Then I guess the 9/11 attacks were a justified response from a more resolved opponent?

 

[Murdoughnut]

Would you have preferred a massive ground invasion that would have killed millions? You just don't want to get in a debate about it b/c you don't want to use logic and are anti-nuke because it's cool and badass and popular.

The tokyo fire bombing raids killed far more than the nukes....

And your views on "just flying above it" are total and utter crap. Do you really see what you're typing?


edit: Grandfather flew the B-29 on the Tokyo raids in WWII, dad flew in Vietnam.... think about what you're typing before you start spewing BS back.

I don't carewhat your grandfather did. Doesn't matter one bit. I'm not getting into an argument or debate over this because I respect the opinions of others, and I don't believe that I have all the answers - just an opinion like everyone else. Plus the matter has been discussed here before, ad naseum. I'm not even talking about dropping the bomb - I'm talking about this attitude of "kill'em all" he's since adopted. Your grandfather's past, just like my grandfather's, has nothing to do with that.

Don't make this into a stupid ass "my X fought in X war, so you can't say that!" I would tell you about my family's history in the military, but I won't - because it isn't even the least bit pertinent to the discussion.

I'm disagreeing with the guy's opinion that civilian causalities don't matter. That's all. This isn't a hill worth dying on.

 

[Murdoughnut]

What event or life experience gives you the right to judge Tibbetts? War experience or just philosophy? What do you know of Tibbetts, his crew and his pre-Enola Gay experience and career?

Again, none of that matters. I already said I'm not coming down on the guy for what he did. I never have and never will. He was a resource, like any soldier.

My argument was with his "kill 'em all" mentality. Just sounds to me like someone who didn't actually witness civilian casualties first hand.

That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. I'm not arguing with anyone.

 

[Orange Anchor]

My argument was with his "kill 'em all" mentality. Just sounds to me like someone who didn't actually witness civilian casualties first hand.

That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. I'm not arguing with anyone.

You might want to spend some time doing a little reading. One very good picture is "The Old Breed", a word-picture of the Pacific which was a far different war than the ETO.

FWIW, I met Tibbets and he had little time for revisionist historians who were not there and who argued with info revealed AFTER the war. Also, Tibbets told the story of him and Fuchida meeting after the war.. an interesting encounter between two men who saw and were part of a lot of killing. From Tibbets' remarks, I surmise they had greater respect for each other than you do, you who were not there.

And yes, you're entitled to an opinion. No argument but there is opinion and informed opinion. There is a difference.

Probably out on a limb here but from the comments, I would opine you haven't been on the battlefield, or above it.

 

[Murdoughnut]

You might want to spend some time doing a little reading. One very good picture is "The Old Breed", a word-picture of the Pacific which was a far different war than the ETO.

FWIW, I met Tibbets and he had little time for revisionist historians who were not there and who argued with info revealed AFTER the war. Also, Tibbets told the story of him and Fuchida meeting after the war.. an interesting encounter between two men who saw and were part of a lot of killing. From Tibbets' remarks, I surmise they had greater respect for each other than you do, you who were not there.

And yes, you're entitled to an opinion. No argument but there is opinion and informed opinion. There is a difference.

Probably out on a limb here but from the comments, I would opine you haven't been on the battlefield, or above it.

You're still not getting it. I never came here to debate dropping the bomb. You want to turn it into a debate on this, but frankly, I don't care about that. I'm criticizing the comment he made above that a military shouldn't worry about killing civilians. I don't care what he did, I disagree vehemently with his "we should nuke all of our enemies without remorse" attitude. Because, as I said, under that logic the 9/11 attacks weren't murder, simply collateral damage.

I have as much battlefield experience as most veterans - none. But again, that has nothing to do with the more philosophical issue of whether civilians should be dispatched without consideration or remorse. This gentleman has taken a stance and I disagree with it. His experience pushing one button doesn't make his opinion any better than mine.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

You're still not getting it. I never came here to debate dropping the bomb. You want to turn it into a debate on this, but frankly, I don't care about that. I'm criticizing the comment he made above that a military shouldn't worry about killing civilians. I don't care what he did, I disagree vehemently with his "we should nuke all of our enemies without remorse" attitude. Because, as I said, under that logic the 9/11 attacks weren't murder, simply collateral damage.

I have as much battlefield experience as most veterans - none. But again, that has nothing to do with the more philosophical issue of whether civilians should be dispatched without consideration or remorse. This gentleman has taken a stance and I disagree with it. His experience pushing one button doesn't make his opinion any better than mine.

There were a few more buttons to be pressed than one, hot shot.


edit- let me clarify. While I agree that the "kill em all" mentality does not work today... it was what had to be done to win WWII. That is where you are missing the point.

 

[granlistillo]

Probably not because I'm not a dick. But his words resound like someone who never saw the devastation of war, just flew above it. Reminds me of a family friend of ours growing up who went through hell and back in 'Nam. He used to say that no one who had actually seen the casualties of war face to face would have any reason to glorify or celebrate it.

Don't get the wrong idea, I think the bomb was a travesty of humanity (no sense getting into a debate about it) but I don't blame him. He was simply a weapon doing his job. But using his logic, I shouldn't feel sorry at all for the 9/11 victims ... they just happened to be in the way.

Sorry but this is one of the most ill-informed post I have seen in a long while. And that is putting it kindly.

1) Paul Tibbets was a recipient of the Purple Heart among other decorations. He flew with the 8th and 15th Air Forces, and in fact as group commander, he led the first bombing mission of the the Mighty Eighth.

2) Perhaps it would be better if the secrets of the nucleus of atoms were not known to mankind. Maybe we would still be fighting large conventional wars killing millions. That is debatable But given the CONTEXT of the fanatical Bushido driven Japanese resistance and using previous battles in the Pacific culminating with Iwo Jima and Okinawa NO serious historian will argue that the use of these weapons DID NOT save millions of lives. The Japanese were going to use everyone, women and children too, in the defense of the mainland.

3) The last part of your sentence is just a big non sequitur.

 

[ETAV8R]

Thanks for a good read.

I did some xrays on a nephew of Tibbets. He said his uncle was an ass. I still respect him for doing what he was ordered to do.

We have become too soft on everything. Not wanting to get another person's panties in a bind-political correctness. Our future is not what Tibbets was, we may all be in for a shock when the world comes knocking on our door. We are not the end all be all of civilizations. I love this country but there is more on this globe than just us. I hate to use this paraphrase but how do we all get along?

 

[Murdoughnut]

There were a few more buttons to be pressed than one, hot shot.


edit- let me clarify. While I agree that the "kill em all" mentality does not work today... it was what had to be done to win WWII. That is where you are missing the point.

You say that as if it's truth. I disagree. But that was never the point. You guys want to make this a debate about dropping the bomb, which I never intended to debate because any opinion will be based on pure speculation of forecasted outcomes.

Right or wrong, I don't celebrate what this guy did - and I've politely declined opportunities to see him speak at air shows. I personally disagree with his crew or their aircraft being celebrated in any capacity, as what happened that day was a horrific tragedy, whether justified or not. At best, the event should be treated as an unfortunate necessity rather than a cause for celebration. But that's just my opinion, and since you guys insisted, there it is.

So stick with a discussion of his current mentality - which is where my original criticism started and ended.

 

[Murdoughnut]

Sorry but this is one of the most ill-informed post I have seen in a long while. And that is putting it kindly.

1) Paul Tibbets was a recipient of the Purple Heart among other decorations. He flew with the 8th and 15th Air Forces, and in fact as group commander, he led the first bombing mission of the the Mighty Eighth.

2) Perhaps it would be better if the secrets of the nucleus of atoms were not known to mankind. Maybe we would still be fighting large conventional wars killing millions. That is debatable But given the CONTEXT of the fanatical Bushido driven Japanese resistance and using previous battles in the Pacific culminating with Iwo Jima and Okinawa NO serious historian will argue that the use of these weapons DID NOT save millions of lives. The Japanese were going to use everyone, women and children too, in the defense of the mainland.

3) The last part of your sentence is just a big non sequitur.

Sorry, I honor Mr. Tibbets service, but I don't believe for one second that anyone who had been there to see the skin falling off of children as they ran helplessly through the streets would have the same attitude. That was my point. I know guys on here have a huge hard on for bomber and fighter pilots, but to say that this man truly experienced the effects of his crews' actions - sorry, I don't buy it for one bit.

 

[Hacker15e]

Anyone here have any idea of what it truly means to turn a B-29 around 159 degrees in 40 seconds? Read the interview to know what I am talking about.

Does your question have to do with why he had to turn that far in that short of time, or about the turn performance of the B-29?

The significance of 159 I'm sure had to do with all the factors involved in planning a bombing attack -- location of anti-air threats, ability to see the target on the ingress, ability for the bomb fall trajectory to hit where they wanted it to hit. On top of that, the egress heading had to take into consideration the safe escape requirements to ensure the airplane and the people survived the effects of the blast.

Depending on the type and size of blast, a typical safe escape maneuver for a nuclear weapon is a turn of more than 90 degress and less than 180 degrees -- it is a balance between the time it takes to turn versus the distance between ground zero and the actual location of the aircraft at detonation (called 'escape distance'). There is a fixed amount of time between the bomb coming off the airplane and the weapon detonating -- obviously a 180-degree turn would generate the most escape distance, but would also take the most time.

Interesting, as the numbers Tibbets mentions works out to about 4 degrees per second of turn -- just slightly more than the standard 2-minute turn. Doesn't seem like that significant of a difference, except you have to add in the time required to roll out and ensure that the airplane is tail-on to the blast. Probably works out to a turn that has to be done in 30-ish seconds, with 5-10 seconds of rolling out and stabilizing before the overpressure wave hit.

 

[Orange Anchor]

You're still not getting it. I never came here to debate dropping the bomb. You want to turn it into a debate on this,

No, I get it. And it is not about the 'bomb'.

I have as much battlefield experience as most veterans - none. But again, that has nothing to do with the more philosophical issue of whether civilians should be dispatched without consideration or remorse. This gentleman has taken a stance and I disagree with it. His experience pushing one button doesn't make his opinion any better than mine.

It certainly does have to do with philosophy. I can opine about all kinds of stuff I have no knowledge of or involvement with. It is not a matter of 'better' as you wish to put it but rather understanding and having been there.. 1st hand.

You have said you have no experience. And as noted earlier, Tibbets and Fuchida seem to have more respect for each other than you do with your 'greatest generation my ass' remark.

Again, Tibbets opinion may not be better but I would venture it was arrived at with more thought, more pain and experience than yours.

Brief personal.. I was a FAC in III Corps. I got called in for air support for a TIC and directed some F-100s on the target, the 'bad guys'. A few days later this big ugly fellow walks into our hootch and wants to find the guy with a specific callsign. I ask why. He explains they were about to be over-run when this guy put in the strikes and took out the 'bad guys'. He said, "Me and a lot of the other guys in my troop probably wouldn't be here and I just want to thanks that SOB." That SOB was me. Did it make me happy? Yes and no. Glad to save those guys but I realized the 'bad guys' had families also. Would I do it again. Yes.

a few months later I was working an area where maybe 10-15 oxcarts were moving down a fire break. They were moving into a free-fire zone, well marked and well known. I dropped down to scan group which had men, women and the some youths. I called into the TOC and was told if they went into the FFZ, take 'em out. I watched for the next :10 as the group moved closer and closer to the FFZ. About 50meters short of the area, the oxcarts turned right and disappeared down a jungle trail. It was obvious they knew where they were, that they were probably carrying ord for the bad guys and it was going to be used on us. But if it came down to it, would I have adjusted arty on them? Yes. Take 'em all out? Yes.

Both of those incidents were now about 40 yrs ago and I still occasionally think about them. Often there are NO easy choices. And a cast off remark of "..my ass" is just that.. a cast off.

 

[Barty]

Then I guess the 9/11 attacks were a justified response from a more resolved opponent?

In response to what? I suppose you're one of the people who thought that the US somehow brought those attacks on ourselves. I'm sure you've probably convinced yourself we were responsible for the "response" from the Japanese 68 years ago.

 

[Murdoughnut]

In response to what? I suppose you're one of the people who thought that the US somehow brought those attacks on ourselves.

Well I don't believe the "they hate our freedoms" bit if that's what you're getting at. The attacks were in response to the US' presence in the middle east. This isn't my opinion - this is what Al Qaeda has said from day one, and the propaganda they've used to recruit. Were they justified? Certainly not. But what enemy is ever justified in the eyes of their opponent?

If you're truly concerned with the factors that "caused" the 9/11 attacks, start there. I'm not the only guy on this board, regardless of party, who believes that we've made mistakes in the region that have brought about bad blood. No excuse for such a brazen attack on civilians, IMO, though.

 

[USMCmech]

Greatest generation my ass.

The reason they are refered to as "The Greatest Generation" is because they did what had to be done. In that case two entire societies had to be decimated in order to protect our own. Paul Tibbets saw plenty of evidence of the destruction that resulted from his mission. He has said repeatedly that he had no second thoughts, and would do the exact thing again.


It is very clear that the Japanese were stragicaly defeated in 1942 after Midway and Guadalcanal. However, they were not "beaten" until a second nuclear bomb destroyed Nagasaki.

Will anyone please show me the MORAL difference between bombing civilian cities with nuclear weapons vs dropping Napalm, WP and HE? More people died in the firebombing raids over Japan than did in both nuclear bombs. That moral threshold had been crossed long before the US was even in the war.

The only difference was the "shock value" which was exactly the point.


In fact Paul Tibbets actions saved 10 Japanese lives for every one he took. Casuality estimates from another year of bombing, submarine warfare, starvation, disease, and the ultimate invasion run into the millions.

 

[ILSstud]

In fact Paul Tibbets actions saved 10 Japanese lives for every one he took. Casuality estimates from another year of bombing, submarine warfare, starvation, disease, and the ultimate invasion run into the millions.

War...nothing more than a numbers game and a matter of side of the line you are on. I think what Murdoughnut is trying to say (forgive me for getting involved, but I 50% agree with his statement) is that the death of a human being whether on the right or wrong side of the line shouldn't be "celebrated." Even my dad who was special ops in the NAVY during Vietnam (3 tours) said he was nothing more than a pawn in a game bigger than he could ever understand. No sense to celebrate the dead (good or bad) war is hell either way you look at it.

 

[poser765]

War...nothing more than a numbers game.

Like gambling. The good players know how to play blackjack so they lose less...not win more.

 

[Low&Slow]

Try keeping everything into perspective. It was a different time back then and we were at war with a country who viciously attacked us without warning. This country, Japan, was known for committing many atrocities against military and civilian populations of China and other countries that they invaded before they attacked us. Their crude, savage, brutal, inhumane practices continued even after we became involved in the Pacific Theatre. The technology for precision bombing was not available in the 1940's and collateral damage was expected and accepted as part of war. I doubt you or I would have given them any quarter if we were fighting back then either.

Today we have the technology to avoid most collateral damage and yet many Americans just wanted to see Iraq nuked without prejudice after 9-11. I can tell you that I remember hearing many people suggesting that we nuke Iraq until it glows or that we make it the world's largest glass parking lot. So are we really any less callous, reckless, or different in any other way towards humanity? Maybe we are actually less compassionate than Mr. Tibbetts or of those in his generation.

I don't think Paul Tibbets is celebrating death, but quite the opposite. Paul Tibbets might have come across to some as heartless, but I dont think he is.

Don't forget that dropping Little Boy was a significant event that helped to expedite an end to the death, suffering, and inhumanity of the war in the pacific. If anyone is to blame for the loss of civilian life in that bombing it is the Japanese government who rejected the Potsdam declaration. They could have prevented the mass death of their citizens.

On another note, almost everything we know today about the effects of radiation on cellular life has been obtained from the victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. Much of that data has been/is being used to treat cancer victims and protect nuclear workers from harm.

 

[ILSstud]

Try keeping everything into perspective. It was a different time back then and we were at war with a country who viciously attacked us without warning. This country, Japan, was known for committing many atrocities against military and civilian populations of China and other countries that they invaded before they attacked us. Their crude, savage, brutal, inhumane practices continued even after we became involved in the Pacific Theatre. The technology for precision bombing was not available in the 1940's and collateral damage was expected and accepted as part of war. I doubt you or I would have given them any quarter if we were fighting back then either.

Today we have the technology to avoid most collateral damage and yet many Americans just wanted to see Iraq nuked without prejudice after 9-11. I can tell you that I remember hearing many people suggesting that we nuke Iraq until it glows or that we make it the world's largest glass parking lot. So are we really any less callous, reckless, or different in any other way towards humanity? Maybe we are actually less compassionate than Mr. Tibbetts or of those in his generation.

I don't think Paul Tibbets is celebrating death, but quite the opposite. Paul Tibbets might have come across to some as heartless, but I dont think he is.

Don't forget that dropping Little Boy was a significant event that helped to expedite an end to the death, suffering, and inhumanity of the war in the pacific. If anyone is to blame for the loss of civilian life in that bombing it is the Japanese government who rejected the Potsdam declaration. They could have prevented the mass death of their citizens.

On another note, almost everything we know today about the effects of radiation on cellular life has been obtained from the victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. Much of that data has been/is being used to treat cancer victims and protect nuclear workers from harm.

So the innocent civilians who died in those attacks are martyrs for science? I think that is stretching it...pro nuke or not.....

 

[ozone]

Interesting, as the numbers Tibbets mentions works out to about 4 degrees per second of turn -- just slightly more than the standard 2-minute turn. Doesn't seem like that significant of a difference, except you have to add in the time required to roll out and ensure that the airplane is tail-on to the blast. Probably works out to a turn that has to be done in 30-ish seconds, with 5-10 seconds of rolling out and stabilizing before the overpressure wave hit.

THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING MY QUESTION!!!!!!

Indeed, I was interested in what it meant for a B29 at altitude to make that kind of turn. I also saw what looked like a wee bit faster than a standard radius turn. But then, I do not fly my piper warrior II at 25k feet with a bomb blast coming up my butt in a few seconds. I was not exactly sure as to whether or not this would be a difficult maneuver to achieve in that particular make and model (B-29).

BTW: I did not intend for this to devolve into a nuke vs anti-nuke vs generation discussion. So, for those of you who are making it so, please take the discussion elsewhere.