- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: WWII history buffs - Pacific theater island hopping
Posted on 12/12/15 at 2:29 pm to GREENHEAD22
Posted on 12/12/15 at 2:29 pm to GREENHEAD22
An island hopping campaign had never been conducted before. So we were learning as we went along. Mistakes were made in selecting targets and in the requirements for dominating an area militarily. We just didn't have a complete grasp of how limited the Japanese were at utilizing some of those islands as bases for operations that could have interfered with or disrupted our plans.
0
Posted on 12/12/15 at 3:13 pm to GREENHEAD22
We did. Wake Island was within flying distance of Hawaii and we never invaded. Outgoing task forces would bomb and shell the shite out of it for gunnery practice, but it stayed in Japanese hands until the surrender. Rabaul was the strongest Japanese island base. We never invaded, but bombed it so much that it was useless by the end of the war.
Tarawa was necessary as an advance base for retaking the Marianas, which the US needed for B29 airfields. McArthur wanted Pelelau (sp) to secure his flank during the Leyte invasion. It turned out to not be necessary, but mistakes in judgement are made in wartime.
You have to keep in mind that leaving an enemy in your rear area is always a risk, because you don't know for a certainty that he has been fully neutralized. This was especially true in the era before precision munitions. You could bomb the shite out of an area and do a lot less damage than expected. Island hopping was an innovative concept, but they still needed a lot of bases, and that meant sending a lot of Marines and Soldiers in across a lot of hostile beaches.
Tarawa was necessary as an advance base for retaking the Marianas, which the US needed for B29 airfields. McArthur wanted Pelelau (sp) to secure his flank during the Leyte invasion. It turned out to not be necessary, but mistakes in judgement are made in wartime.
You have to keep in mind that leaving an enemy in your rear area is always a risk, because you don't know for a certainty that he has been fully neutralized. This was especially true in the era before precision munitions. You could bomb the shite out of an area and do a lot less damage than expected. Island hopping was an innovative concept, but they still needed a lot of bases, and that meant sending a lot of Marines and Soldiers in across a lot of hostile beaches.
Posted on 12/12/15 at 3:24 pm to WestCoastAg
Yea I understand that.
This post was edited on 12/12/15 at 3:27 pm
Posted on 12/12/15 at 4:32 pm to Jim Rockford
New question. Why did we give Berlin to Russia?
Posted on 12/12/15 at 4:35 pm to GREENHEAD22
My grandpa was in the Pacific theatre in WWII, he was in an island hopping crew setting up radar stations throughout the Philippine Islands. They would bomb, then clear out what was left, then set up the radar.
Posted on 12/12/15 at 4:42 pm to GREENHEAD22
quote:
Why did we give Berlin to Russia?
wat
Posted on 12/12/15 at 4:50 pm to GREENHEAD22
We did skip a lot of islands. I want to say there was a Jap soldier stranded on one that thought the war was still going on well into the 1970s
This post was edited on 12/12/15 at 4:52 pm
Posted on 12/12/15 at 4:58 pm to GREENHEAD22
quote:
Why did we give Berlin to Russia?
Might I suggest reading up on the Berlin Wall as primer for this topic?
Posted on 12/12/15 at 5:02 pm to GREENHEAD22
quote:
Why did we give Berlin to Russia?
Because we didn't need no education.
Posted on 12/12/15 at 5:14 pm to GREENHEAD22
There was an agreement between the Allies as to how far each would advance. Berlin was in the Russian area.
German soldiers and civilians did everything they could to surrender to the Brits or Americans, because they knew what the Russians had in store for them.
German soldiers and civilians did everything they could to surrender to the Brits or Americans, because they knew what the Russians had in store for them.
Posted on 12/12/15 at 8:16 pm to Cdawg
quote:
There are numerous stories about Japanese soldiers being left behind and still fighting after the war ended.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Not just on bypassed islands either. My father was stationed on Guam in the early '50s and some character came out of the jungle 7 or 8 years after the war was over.
I want say that the last Japanese soldier to surrender in the Pacific didn't throw in the towel until sometime in the '60s. Those frickers were crazy.
There are numerous stories about Japanese soldiers being left behind and still fighting after the war ended.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Not just on bypassed islands either. My father was stationed on Guam in the early '50s and some character came out of the jungle 7 or 8 years after the war was over.
I want say that the last Japanese soldier to surrender in the Pacific didn't throw in the towel until sometime in the '60s. Those frickers were crazy.
Posted on 12/12/15 at 8:30 pm to EmperorGout
quote:
Historians are still debating whether the Battle of Iwo Jima was even necessary, for instance. The airfield was used less than 10 times for long-range fighter escorts.
---------------------------------------------------------------
You're correct about current historians debating the necessity of the invasion of Iwo Jima, but the first battle damaged B-29s were making emergency landings on Iwo Jima before the island was cometely secured. I want to say 700 B-29s landed there between February and August of '45. I could very well be way off on this number, but my dad was a B-29 guy and I seem to recall him using this figure as a partial justification for the massive casualties suffered by the USMC.
Historians are still debating whether the Battle of Iwo Jima was even necessary, for instance. The airfield was used less than 10 times for long-range fighter escorts.
---------------------------------------------------------------
You're correct about current historians debating the necessity of the invasion of Iwo Jima, but the first battle damaged B-29s were making emergency landings on Iwo Jima before the island was cometely secured. I want to say 700 B-29s landed there between February and August of '45. I could very well be way off on this number, but my dad was a B-29 guy and I seem to recall him using this figure as a partial justification for the massive casualties suffered by the USMC.
Posted on 12/12/15 at 8:36 pm to White Roach
quote:
I want say that the last Japanese soldier to surrender in the Pacific didn't throw in the towel until sometime in the '60s. Those frickers were crazy.
1974
Posted on 12/12/15 at 8:37 pm to White Roach
quote:
I want say that the last Japanese soldier to surrender in the Pacific didn't throw in the towel until sometime in the '60s. Those frickers were crazy.
I think one guy in the Philippines held out into the '70s
Posted on 12/12/15 at 8:41 pm to White Roach
quote:
700 B-29s landed there between February and August
A dozen or so crew on each aircraft, which otherwise would have had to ditch in the ocean. Say, 8400 guys who would have had to be rescued by sub, PBY, or ship. A lot of those guys wouldn't have made it.
8th Air Force had a higher casualty rate then ground units in the ETO.
This post was edited on 12/12/15 at 8:42 pm
Posted on 12/12/15 at 8:51 pm to FightinTigersDammit
I think the standard size B-29 crew was 11. So call it ~7,700 guys who didn't have to be fished out of a gigantic ocean, plus ~700 aircraft that weren't total losses.
It doesn't offset the ~23,000 Marine casualties, but at the same time, it's not like their sacrifice was a total waste.
It doesn't offset the ~23,000 Marine casualties, but at the same time, it's not like their sacrifice was a total waste.
Posted on 12/12/15 at 8:54 pm to White Roach
quote:
It doesn't offset the ~23,000 Marine casualties, but at the same time, it's not like their sacrifice was a total waste.
Exactly, and at the time, it wasn't written in stone that we would end the war in a few months' time with A-bombs.
Posted on 12/12/15 at 9:02 pm to White Roach
If memory serves, Iwo Jima halved the distance bombers had to fly to hit mainland Japan. It did not open up new territory for bombing. The main argument for the attack was that it would allow said bombers to have fighter escorts on their missions - something that ended up occurring less than 10 times.
Iwo Jima was useless as either an Army base or a Naval port. It was not strictly necessary for the bombing campaign, either. So you take the total casualties of the battle and divide by 10 and ask yourself if it was worth it for the bombers to have fighter escorts on bombing runs they would have made anyway.
I will say that the battle has become etched in national mythology to such a degree that the above arguments really only started being made recently, though.
Iwo Jima was useless as either an Army base or a Naval port. It was not strictly necessary for the bombing campaign, either. So you take the total casualties of the battle and divide by 10 and ask yourself if it was worth it for the bombers to have fighter escorts on bombing runs they would have made anyway.
I will say that the battle has become etched in national mythology to such a degree that the above arguments really only started being made recently, though.
Posted on 12/12/15 at 9:18 pm to EmperorGout
quote:
it would allow said bombers to have fighter escorts on their missions
Which would have been important for the planned invasion of Japan.
Posted on 12/12/15 at 9:19 pm to EmperorGout
If we're talking about unnecessary battles, the whole Phillipines campaign tops the list. We would have been better off consolidating our resources into one push through the Central Pacific. As it was, MacArthur and Halsey had to take turns mounting major operations because there weren't enough ships and landing craft to support both simultaneously. MacArthur had promised the Phillipines he was coming back, and he did, but it did nothing to shorten the war. We were still fighting in the Phillipines right up to the Japanese surrender.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News