Tactical Defeat of US marines at Iwo Jima?

[Delta Tank]

To all,

I tried to see if this article had been posted on this thread, I could not find it, so I will post it. I did not know that The 147 th Infantry Regiment fought on Iwo Jima. Here is an article about their actions:

https://history.army.mil/armyhistory/AH105(W).pdf

Mike

[dgfred]

Nice. Thanks Delta

[daveshoup2MD]

Today I've read an interesting article in Bungeishunju (文芸春秋), according to which Japanese tactical victory over US marine at Iwojima can be explained from two points.

First, the Japanese commander Kuribayashi Tadamich forbade his men to commit gyokusai. They fought to the end instead, thus causing enormous loss to US marines.

Second, Kuribayashi didn't apply seashore combat (水際作戦) which usually resulted in slaughter of Japanese soldiers at beaches. Instead, the Japanese waited until Americans landed and take a backlash and constant guerilla warfare.

I know there are other reasons the Americans suffered a huge loss at Iwojima. But these two points are fresh. Any opinions will be welcomed.

How is it a tactical defeat of the US at Iwo Jima when they actually captured it?

Very strange logic you have.

Heavy losses in manpower does not equate to a "tactical defeat" if the objectives are met or achieved./

By the same logic, the Allies were defeated at Rome and the Soviets at Berlin.

[paulrward]

Hello All ;

Yup, Iwo was a disastrous defeat for the Marines - slaughtered in the shallow water in their landing
crafts, massacred on the beaches, cut down trying to scale Suribachi, and ultimately driven off the
island by the Victorious Japanese.

So...... Why are these guys smiling ?

Respectfully :

Paul R. Ward

Iwo Tactical Defeat.jpg

[Linkagain]

Okinawa too could also be considered a tactical defeat for US Forces by dividing Japanese losses ratio with US Loses
for every one square yard
1 IJA {dead}
3 US KIA
7 US WIa
one saying is that WW II Japanese servicemen would vow to take 10 of the enemy with him....Okinawa and Iwo Jima were Island and part of Mainland Japan proper....if the Allies tried a ground/air/sae invastion of Japan the only way to survive was to Kill every one of the Population.. civilian and military and dont forget Japan still had a 1,000,000 army in China...US servicemen in europe fisnished withe Germans when told they were going to Japan wrote out their last wills....

[R Leonard]

I think your math is a little off. How many square yards did you come up with for 466 square miles?

Okinawa = 466 sq mi. 1 sq mi = 3,097,600 sq yd. 466 x 3,097,600 = ? sq yd?

Now make your estimates.

And while there were somewhat more than 1,000,000 Japanese soldiers in all those occupied areas of China in 1945, they had no way to get to the home islands unless they swam.

[R Leonard]

Tried to figure out how you arrived at your ratios, but quickly determined that none of the standard land measurements, acres, square miles, nor even square kilometers can possibly bring us to the numbers you originally posted.

[Takao]

I'm certain the okinawa casualty numbers are way off, which skews the whole shebang.

[Carl Schwamberger]

I'm certain the okinawa casualty numbers are way off, which skews the whole shebang.

So are some ideas about the actual ability of the Japanese. A read of Col Yaharas account of the battle of Okinawa deeply challenges some core ideas about Japanese resistance.

[R Leonard]

I'm certain the okinawa casualty numbers are way off, which skews the whole shebang.

Well, there is that, too. Wasn't going to address casualty figures until we straightened out land measurements. That said, it is apparent that whatever numbers being used for casualties in the original presentation are seriously flawed.

[Takao]

Given that Okinawa deaths were 12,200+ American to 110,000 Japanese(troops & Okinawan conscripts). There is no way that the casualty rate was 3 American KIA for 1 Japanese KIA per square yard no matter how badly one butchers the yardage calculation.

The ratio improves slightly if Iwo & Okinawa casualties are added together.

[Linkagain]

A related link on Iwo Jima
viewtopic.php?f=33&t=259163

Yes the ratio for message 251 if both Iwo Jima and Okinawa casualitys were added together.....Remember these Islands are a part of JAPAN PROPER

[AriX]

US casulties of KIA/DOW were less in 3 times than Japanese. US forces had complete their mission by capturing the island and annihilating the adversary. If that's a "tactical defeat", than I dont know what "tactical victory" is.

[AginAf]

I AGREE, NOT A TACTICAL DEFEAT.
BUT COMBINED WITH SKILLED AND WELL LED IJA GROUND DEFENSE SUPPORTED BY KAMIKAZE AIR SUPPORT AT SAIPAN AND IWO JIMA, AND THE COSTLY VICTORY AT OKINAWA, WHERE THE US FORCES FOUND THE SAME QUALITIES IN THE JAPANESE DEFENSE OF THAT ISLAND, GAVE THE ALLIES SIGNIFICANT PAUSE ABOUT THE COMING INVASION OF THE HOME ISLANDS.
THERE, THEY WOULD FACE ABOUT A BETTER ARMED IJA AND IJN THAT CONSTITUTED ABOUT 70 % OF THE ENTIRE JAPANESE ARMED FORCES, NOT THE PACKETS THE US FACED IN THE ISLAND CAMPAIGNS. A MILLION ALLIED CASUALTIES WERE ANTICIPATED, AND MULTIMILLIONS OF JAPANESE MILITARY AND CIVILIAN PERSONNEL.
ERGO, THE TWO NUCLEAR WEAPONS DROPS PLUS THE B-29 FIREBOMBING OF CITIES RAIDS, BOTH OF WHICH CONVINCED THE ONE MAN IN JAPANESE SOCIETY WHO COULD AUTHORIZE NATIONAL SURRENDER TO DECIDE TO DO SO. EMPEROR HIROHITO MADE HIS RADIO BROADCAST ANNOUNCING ACCEPTANCE OF SURRENDER.

[AginAf]

US CASUALITY COUNTING HAS TO INCLUDE THE WOUNDED. THE SONS OF NIPPON FOUGHT TO THE DEATH, WE DIDN'T, SO THEIR WIA AND CAPTURED LIST WERE EXTREMELY SMALL, AND OUR WIA LIST EXTREMELY LARGE.