Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΒ  permalink

Nemesis - War in Pacific [South East Asia]

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by GrandFalconRailroad (U14802912) on Tuesday, 22nd March 2011

  Hello all fellow historical gunboat diplomats and travellers,
  
  Max Hastings advances the argument that the B-29 was sued to firebomb Japan because it had been paid for an was available and he suggests that many islands of the Fifth Fleet/Third Fleets advance across the Pacific were only fought for because they were there........so my question is thus:
  
  If you think he's got a point SHOULD the vast US Naval armada at the disposal of the Pacific Fleet just made for the furthest East safe harbour (I'm guessing Midway) and instead of "hopping" Tarawa, Saipan, Guam, Iwo Jim, Okinawa - just made for Okinawa and in effect outflanked all those little useless atolls (other than possibly their single runway) and used the submarines of the US PACFLT to intercept any Jap warships trying attack this armada? Were these specs of land only assaulted because they offered 6x7 sq miles of solid rock in a vast ocean?

  Link to this forum: Nemesis - War in Pacific [South East Asia]

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by VF (U5759986) on Tuesday, 22nd March 2011

  Hindsight is a wonderful thing.There may have been a degree of political motivation,McArthur had promised that" he would return" to the Philippines,but I do wonder whether conventional wisdom at the time would be to attack,conquer and consolidate,rather than say make an all out assault on Okinawa.Its one thing to assault an island,its another to hold it and support it.Just say that the US did "go for it" and make landings against Okinawa,how would the logistics chain work?Could you definitely prevent the Japanese from affecting the supply of your troops?Could you keep your vast fleet oiled,munitioned and secure such a long way from home?
  
  The other thing is at which point would you undertake such a venture?The Essex class carriers do not really come on stream till mid 1943 along with their support craft.With no" Marianas Turkey shoot" you are going to have a lot more planes available closer to home,with no Battle of Leyte Gulf you are going to have a lot of large warships nearer home waters.The end result may be the same (Japanese get slaughtered),but at what cost to the US?The Japanese may well have lost hundreds of planes ,but would the Japanese got a few blows in too?
  
  Maybe its because Im a conservative thinker,but I think they got it right by consolidating their gains and moving on.I think there was a degree of political motivation,I think the US had no interest in supporting the re establishment of European colonies such as the Dutch East Indies or Malaya hence no attack.
  
  Just my two penneth

  Link to this forum: Nemesis - War in Pacific [South East Asia]

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 22nd March 2011

  GrandFalconRailroad
  
  I suppose it is now very obvious that the Americans have a global military capability.. though my now dead brother who was an RAF electrician working on fighter jet-engines might have made some chauvinistic point about a US war-plane breaking down over Libya today..
  
  But surely Niall Ferguson in right in observing that US Imperial expansions had really just been a series of what we would now see as "Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Wars".. True that in a moment of Imperialism they got as far as Hawaii and Midway, but surely that was as much to "hold the line" against the "yellow peril" after racial tensions in California resulting from the inrush of Chinese "coolies".
  
  The big exception was the US entry into the IWW- but that was really all about pushing Germany back, and surely this was the US reaction after Pearl Harbour, that may have been a day of infamy that will live forever in the pages of history, but, like 9/11 actually could have been considerably worse if all of the normal target had been there.
  
  Japan, after all, had over-run the might of the British military presence in the Far East, and with Britain- the arch-imperialist- humbled, how could the USA be confident that it could strike right at the heart of Japan- and succeed. In recent days I have seen pictures of towns that go right back to Hiroshima and Nagasaki - things that I have not seen repeated since those initial attacks when I was just over one year old.. And we must remember that even with all that island hopping, and then the Le May carpet-fire bombing and then the two atom bombs- Japan did not immediately surrender. How many Atom bonbs were there? etc
  
  In fact Americans in the field knew that you could not advance beyond any live Japanese soldier. Hence the film of the cautious advance with rifle in hand over piles of Japanese dead bodies. Every so often one was only playing dead, and would leap up and become a suicide bomber taking an enemy with him. And the flame thrower was used extensively for Japanese foxholes.
  
  One has to wonder too- in view of what I have written about US military history- just what impact Winston Churchill , that half-American British PM, who had learned painful lessons during the IWW of the "fools rush in" kind.
  
  Cass

  Link to this forum: Nemesis - War in Pacific [South East Asia]

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by GrandFalconRailroad (U14802912) on Wednesday, 23rd March 2011

  Hi VF,
  
  I suppose the Phillipines would have always been required to be invaded - after all that is a "proper" country so I'd say even if you went straight to Okinawa there'd still be a Battle of PS and LG.
  
  

  Link to this forum: Nemesis - War in Pacific [South East Asia]

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Wednesday, 23rd March 2011

  But why not while fighting a defensive war in the Pacific, just retake those islands in the Aleutians occupied by the Japanese, possibly make a deal with the Russians (Unlikely though) to use their islands as well. Turn them into unsinkable aircraft carriers and that would put the likes of the B24s 17s and then later the 29s within bombing rang of the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ islands without the great loss of life incured taking the Pacific islands. Japan would have to pull back (As Germany did) both troops and aircraft to defend the homeland. There was a suggestion of dropping the A Bomb from the Aleutians. You have to wonder how much of the push in the south Pacific was down to the "I will return." remarks.After all, it wasn't his blood being spilt.

  Link to this forum: Nemesis - War in Pacific [South East Asia]

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Wednesday, 23rd March 2011

  You need to be able to put fighters into the ring to deal with enemy bombers, so there was a need to invade at least some of the islands (many were actually left to "wither on the vine" ) to provide fighter bases. The main fleet might be OK under carrier fighter cover, but your support and supply train would risk decimation at least.

  Link to this forum: Nemesis - War in Pacific [South East Asia]

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Thursday, 24th March 2011

  Although the Aleutians were on the most direct path between the mainland US and Japan, they weren't the most strategically important. Both sides considered them peripheral; the Americans sent the desert-trained 7ID there strictly for political reasons.
  
  The war was fought where it was for strategic reasons: the western Pacific islands around which lay the major shipping lanes.

  Link to this forum: Nemesis - War in Pacific [South East Asia]

  Report message7

Back to top