TSR Q&A with Gary Gygax

This is the multi-year Q&A sessions held by D&D co-creator Gary Gygax here at EN World, beginning in 2002 and running up until his sad pasing in 2008. Gary's username in the thread below is Col_Pladoh, and his first post in this long thread is Post #39.

 

[haakon1]

My 8th grade teacher was the pilot of a B29 flying from Tinian, and he told us many hair-raising tales about the war in the Pacific. He lost three planes in the course of his tour of duty.

Did they go down from mechanical difficulties or enemy action?

I wonder a bit about Enola Gay's most important sortie in history . . . the vision I have is of a single bomber, unescorted, at super high altitude, beyond what fighters or flak could easily deal with. I wonder why they sent just one plane, if indeed they did.

 

[Sanguinemetaldawn]

Did they go down from mechanical difficulties or enemy action?

I wonder a bit about Enola Gay's most important sortie in history . . . the vision I have is of a single bomber, unescorted, at super high altitude, beyond what fighters or flak could easily deal with. I wonder why they sent just one plane, if indeed they did.

The Enola Gay went with two additional bombers, but that was it, in terms of the whole route at least.

By the time the Bombs were dropped, the US had total air dominance over Japan, and we had been flying sorties against the main islands for months...and they still refused to surrender.

The reason for this is pretty simple: air dominance is long way from total victory, and the Japanese still had millions of personnel on the mains islands as well as the Korean peninsula and Manchuria.

And that of course is why the Bombs were necessary. We had up to date intel from intercepted transmissions that the Japanese were not going to surrender, and Japanese military officials have stated they were preparing to repel any amphibious assault we might make.

The bloodbath that would have resulted from such an assault would have made Okinawa and Iwo Jima look like a walk in the park. Not to mention the difficulty of lauching the assault, and dubious prospects for its success.

And the only alternative to the Bomb, or amphib assault, would have been leaving the Japanese Imperial military intact. Which doesn't really seem a viable option, more of a postponement.

I apologize for the long windedness, but there is a false narrative perpetuated by the left today that the bombs were dropped "even though the US 'knew'" Japan was going to surrender. That statment is pure drek, and a slander.

The US did know for a fact that Japan had no intention of surrendering (as indicated by diplomatic intercepts), and the proof of that fact is that even AFTER the Bombs were dropped and the Soviets began their assault, and the emperor ordered a surrender, the military attempted a coup to prevent the surrender. If the military was willing to overthrow the emperor to stop the surrender after two atom bombs and the entry of the Soviets into the pacific war, how any sane person could think they would surrender before those events is beyond my understanding.


At any rate, the need for any real escort seemed minimal in the judgement of the command, and they were proved correct.

Also, you noted the high altitude at which the bombs were dropped. This accomplished two purposes. The first was avoiding flak and so forth as you note. The second was to maximize the distance between the plane and the center of the shockwave.

In the WaW documentary about the bomb, Tibbets recounts the experience of the aircraft shuddering from the force of the blast, even at that altitude and distance.

Edited to excise statement about on-board machine guns. They were removed for the Silverplates because of the demands of dropping such huge bombs.

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Did they go down from mechanical difficulties or enemy action?

I wonder a bit about Enola Gay's most important sortie in history . . . the vision I have is of a single bomber, unescorted, at super high altitude, beyond what fighters or flak could easily deal with. I wonder why they sent just one plane, if indeed they did.

Mr. Jarvis stated that at least onbe of the bombers he lost was because of Japanese action...flak IIRR.

He also spoke of a bomb that did not drop from the rack, and how one of the crewmen had a lariat and used it to tie ut ub place. when he landed the plane the bomb was suspended only by that rope.

The account above of the mission to drom the A Bomb on HIroshima is accurate to the best of my knowledge. The Japanese had developed fighter aircraft that could attain stratospheric heights, but only im prototype. I think was was called the Raiko.

Cheers,
GAry

 

[nerfherder]

That is a great pic, and the first time I was made that furlongs were added to mile distances anywhere.

Thanks for sharing that!

Cheers,
Gary

Thanks! I appreciate your kind comments.

Cheers,
Liam

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Thanks! I appreciate your kind comments.

Cheers,
Liam

Just calling 'em the way I see 'em.

Cheerio,
Gary

 

[khyron1144]

Assassins & Paladins

Hey Gary,
I would be much delighted if you would tell me what you think of this entry from my blog:
http://greybeardsngrognards.blogspot.com/2007/11/greybeards-grognards-3-assassins.html


If you don't feel you have time to read the whole thing, I can summarize it thusly:
Properly played, paladins are more disruptive to party harmony than assassins.


Thanks for your time.

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Hey Gary,
I would be much delighted if you would tell me what you think of this entry from my blog:
http://greybeardsngrognards.blogspot.com/2007/11/greybeards-grognards-3-assassins.html


If you don't feel you have time to read the whole thing, I can summarize it thusly:
Properly played, paladins are more disruptive to party harmony than assassins.


Thanks for your time.

Ciao,

I can't believe I read the whoe essay...

Actually, I enjoyed it and found it well-written and informative. I offer the followig comments:

Removing the Assassin from the game was as useful as KOing demons and devils. As if those that objected to the game because of there being such monsters included would rush out and buy it, or even stop denouncing it, when such evil portions were excised from the game.

In a party of wholly Good aligned PCs the Paladin has to work at being disruptive. Many players with a Paladin PC seem to aim at being a thron in the flesh of the group.

The Assassin PC will generally have in mind "whacking" a fellow party member in order to gain the XPs from the hit and the good stuff that character possesses.

In short, both sorts of PCs can be detrimental to party harmony.

That said, the OAD&D game did not encourage backstabbing. It merely allowed characters to do that if it was their choice. In the many years that I ran the GReyhawk campaign, there were few incidents of such behavior. Most occurred when a group decided to create Evil PCs and adventure thus. The several Paladins played, as well as two or three Assassins were no more disruptive that the greedy thieves

Cheers,
Gary

 

[khyron1144]

Thanks much.

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Thanks much.

Welcome. That is an interesting essay

Cheers,
Gary

 

[The Great Bear King]

I have to agree with your comments on paladins and assassins Gary. From what I've seen in my own sessions, neither assassins nor paladins are required to cause party strife and infighting, nor would they make anything worse. No matter the edition or rule set used dysfunctional parties will always be present, waiting to rear their ugly heads. For example I'll post a party my character, Doctor Edward Philips, was a part of.

Doctor Edward Philips: A Chaotic Good, human necromancer wizard (magic-user in 1st Edition) played by me. I convinced the DM to add some weakened healing spells to his list under the Necromancy school. Hit the party fighter with a chill touch to try to stop him from killing a non-threatening gloomwing.

party fighter (can't remember his name): Think of a combination of Edmund Blackadder and Zapp Branigan with just a hint of Milo Menderbender. He kept a pair of robes and holy symbol of each major religion so he could con them out of all their money. His alignment was Lawful Neutral (I'd say he had at least tendencies towards Evil). He pushed my character out of the way and slaughtered the innocent gloomwing. Then he cut off the wings, hid the body, and sheathed his sword then walked off as if nothing happened. He also is trying to convince a small rural town that its founder is a vampire so he could bilk them out of their money.

party cleric of Pelor with ADHD: He was a human cleric of Pelor and former friend of the party necromancer (me). I say former friend because he attacked the stone altar instead of defending the lunar moth. Why did he attack the altar? Were the temple priests Evil? No, he just wanted to smash something.

party barbarian #1: Didn't like me at the start and threatened to kill my character on two separate occasions. How was I supposed to know he wouldn't like the idea of me putting his pet dog in a zoo? That said he sided with me in the fight with the party fighter, but only in spirit. He was probably Chaotic Neutral.

party barbarian #2: He actually got along with the party necromancer thinking him to be one of the few non-idiots in the party. He also came up with rather sane and intelligent battle tactics for the party. Sadly, the party fighter/leader preferred to use his own "tactics" instead. These were mostly comprised of dirty tricks, attempted bribery and using the rest of the party as his own personal meat shield/cannon fodder. Some times he did this all at once.

party druid: Friendly to me at the start, True Neutral and with a bison instead of a dog. Otherwise, see barbarian #1.

No amount of assassins or paladins could have made this party worse.