Iwo Jima

[donsor]

The accuracy of the report must've been very close. However, it seemed that no one maximized on it. It appears that throughout the Pacific War, reports such as these, were litterally ignored.

[OpanaPointer]

The accuracy of the report must've been very close. However, it seemed that no one maximized on it. It appears that throughout the Pacific War, reports such as these, were litterally ignored.

An interesting course of investigation might be to see which reports were accepted and integrated into the planning and which ones were rejected or ignored. The planners had to have something to work from, but is there a clear bias toward one type or source of report over all others?

[donsor]

In my opinion, there was just too much ego among the planners. BTW, who was really overall in charge of the entire Pacific campaign?

[LWD]

In my opinion, there was just too much ego among the planners. BTW, who was really overall in charge of the entire Pacific campaign?

Makeing such a statment then asking it rather undermines your position. So far you have made general statements with little or no attempt to supply supporting evidence or logic.

[donsor]

LWD. No lectures please. Stay with the issue and don't get personal.

[LWD]

LWD. No lectures please. Stay with the issue and don't get personal.

You keep saying you could do better and that the plans were flawed. However you have failed to state why the plans were flawed much less documented it. Furthermore you have not suggested any way you could "do better". You are the proponent of these propositions and I have requested you support them with fact and logic. Failing to do so means that your statements are to be considered unsupported opinions which carry little weight on these boards and indeed are discouraged.

[donsor]

No sense trying to beat up on a dead horse. I'd like to have discussion on the subject but you prefer to argue. So let's just drop it.

[rcocean]

LWD. No lectures please. Stay with the issue and don't get personal.

You keep saying you could do better and that the plans were flawed. However you have failed to state why the plans were flawed much less documented it. Furthermore you have not suggested any way you could "do better". You are the proponent of these propositions and I have requested you support them with fact and logic. Failing to do so means that your statements are to be considered unsupported opinions which carry little weight on these boards and indeed are discouraged.

Yeah, that's pretty much it. No use having a 'discussion' when someone can't - or won't - support their opinions. This is supposed to be a discussion board about HISTORY. Opinions offered should have some sort of historical basis, not just unsupported "hey, I was just talkin'" verbiage.

[donsor]

Whatever.

[Dwight Pruitt]

Not to pile on, but they are right. Normandy was a screw up? My thoughts might differ. Educate me why you believe that Three stooges could have ran a better campaign at Iwo? Cool, tell me why Shemp could have done better. All of us probably have an idea or fifty how things could been different. That's why we are here...to discuss.

[donsor]

To discuss but not to argue and certainly not to lecture. Bud Abbot/ Lou Costello is a better analogy than the Three Stooges when no one knew who's on second and who's on first. The point of my analogy was that the various top commanders in the Pacific campaign seemed fragmented. BTW just curious, were any of you in any of the military service? any combat experience? WWII. Korea, Vietnam?

[Takao]

Which Pacific Campaign are you talking about? The Central Pacific or the Southwest Pacific...

You also should remember that at that late stage in the game, each service was trying to position themselves as the "dominant" service so that the could get the largest slice of what would be a very small post-war military budget pie.

[rcocean]

I'll make this post. I knows the odds are 100-1 I'll get an intelligent response. Geez, didn't this site used to full of intelligent people who wanted informed discussion on WWII? So here goes... :roll:

If you wish to ignore (i) the Marine Corps casualties caused by the Navy and Army Air Forces failure to soften up Iwo with adequate air and naval bombardment, and (ii) the unavoidable high losses caused the new Japanese tactics and extensive well planned defense, losses were high due to:

1) failure to provide more flame-throwing tanks and more tanks in general
2) failure to commit the 3rd marine Corps division that was held in reserve. Rightly or wrongly, it was held back and replacements were used instead, leading to higher losses.
3) Failure to realize the impact of the Iwo's volcanic ash on vehicular movement - this and the high surf - made it difficult to get Tanks on-shore and off the beach in the first couple days.
4) Failure to use more Marine Corps air support (Blame the Navy)
5) Failure to use more on-shore artillery.
6) Failure to use more night attacks to seize key terrain

[OpanaPointer]

To discuss but not to argue and certainly not to lecture. Bud Abbot/ Lou Costello is a better analogy than the Three Stooges when no one knew who's on second and who's on first. The point of my analogy was that the various top commanders in the Pacific campaign seemed fragmented. BTW just curious, were any of you in any of the military service? any combat experience? WWII. Korea, Vietnam?

Please visit the sites in my sig.

[rcocean]

To discuss but not to argue and certainly not to lecture. Bud Abbot/ Lou Costello is a better analogy than the Three Stooges when no one knew who's on second and who's on first. The point of my analogy was that the various top commanders in the Pacific campaign seemed fragmented. BTW just curious, were any of you in any of the military service? any combat experience? WWII. Korea, Vietnam?

Please visit the sites in my sig.

Yes, please visit his site. Otherwise, he'll keep posting.