The USN failure at Iwo Jima

[temujin77]

With the release of Flags of Our Fathers, it's a great time to discuss the Battle of Iwo Jima.

To me, one of the many controversies out of this battle was the US Navy's failure to provide the Marines with adequate pre-invasion bombardment. Holland Smith asked for ten days of support, but he got but three. And it wasn't even a full three days; the first and third days were cut short by many hours due to weather (USN bombardment doctrine dictated that if scout planes could not see the targets, then all bombardments must be suspended to avoid wasting shells). The reason Smith got was "due to limitations on the availability of ships, difficulties of ammunition replacement, and the loss of surprise". Smith was mad; in fact, "Howlin' Mad"; but there was little he could do. Raymond Spruance commented that the Marines should be able to "get away with it."

The Marines got away with it, but with stunning loss. 4,900 died on the island, with another 1,900 missing or deceased later due to wounds. 19,200 were wounded. Of course, the Navy didn't get away with letting this happen. Richmond Turner and other admirals were criticized harshly for this bloody battle.

But in all honestly, even if the island was bombarded for 30 days, would it have made that much of a difference? After all, Kuribayashi's men were not on the island. They were IN it...

WW2DB: Battle of Iwo Jima

[Tom Houlihan]

In reality, I think that even with a full 30 day's bombardment, the effect would have been minimal.

As you pointed out, the defenders were in, as opposed to on, the island. I have walked through some of the tunnels there. Unless you had multiple shells landing in the same spot consecutively, excavating the terrain, nothing was going to happen. They were too deep.

The only real effect I can think of would have been psychological. That long a bombardment might have effected the minds of some of the defenders, but that's about it. I can't say whether that would be a good thing or not.

[Klaus]

"The only real effect I can think of would have been psychological."

That's what I thought too. Perhaps it was a matter of time they didn't do it. Or cost.

[Jim O]

Originally Posted by Klaus

Perhaps it was a matter of time

I think that's a big part of it, or maybe timing. The island was needed at that time for strategic and tactical reasons.

[Klaus]

So just skipping the Island was no Option. I would have bombed them. Better than to do nothing. As for timing: The japanese were dug in anyway. They had all the time at hand they needed to carefully prepare an invasion. But I'm not an expert. Just my two cents. I don't know what was going on elsewhere.

[PatM]

Read your post on Iwo but believe that no amount of shelling or aerial bombardment could have made it easier for the Marines-the Japanese were just too well dug in-so it was up to the men on the sharp end using the "blowtorch and corkscrew" method to get the job done. Gen Kuribayashi did his very best in what was for him a no-win situation. He made us pay for every yard of that God awful place. Anyone out there ever read T. R. Fehrenbach's "This Kind of War"? It deals with Korea but it also applies to WW2 and every other war since then. He said you can fly over the enemy's country, bomb it-even atomize it, stripping it clean of life, but to truly control it, you must do what has been done since the days of Caesar and his legions--you must put your young men in the mud.

[dgfred]

Originally Posted by Tom Houlihan

In reality, I think that even with a full 30 day's bombardment, the effect would have been minimal.

As you pointed out, the defenders were in, as opposed to on, the island. I have walked through some of the tunnels there. Unless you had multiple shells landing in the same spot consecutively, excavating the terrain, nothing was going to happen. They were too deep.

The only real effect I can think of would have been psychological. That long a bombardment might have effected the minds of some of the defenders, but that's about it. I can't say whether that would be a good thing or not.

Yep, I agree. Maybe psychological, but even that would be minimal.

[temujin77]

Do you guys think Iwo Jima could've been bypassed like Rabaul or Truk?

[dgfred]

Well, it did come in awfully handy for returning bombers really quickly. Almost
no other Island would have served so well, but casualties were quite high.

[temujin77]

Originally Posted by dgfred

Well, it did come in awfully handy for returning bombers really quickly. Almost
no other Island would have served so well, but casualties were quite high.

That's a good point...

Side-track question - Marcus Island has a similar distance to Japan as Iwo Jima (slightly further for western cities though) and was only manned by a few thousand Japanese. Could it be used for bombers? Or was it way too small to set up as a bomber base?