Quite necessary. The P51s annihilated their airforce and prevented and hindered the training of many kamikaze pilots. It also allowed the b29s to fly lower missions which significantly increased their bomb loads and leathality. Getting that island may not have been strictly necessary knowing the a bombs coming, but it provided a hell of a return, and may in fact have been necessary to pave the way for those bombers.JustinR wrote:Yes. P-51's were immediately based there for bomber escort duty, along with P-61 night fighters and some PBY seaplane tenders off shore for SAR. The book I read said even with the P-51's range, it needed to take off from Iwo to be able to get to Japan and back with the B-29's. I haven't looked up numbers to verify this but I believe it is correct. As to the necessity of fighter escort that late in the war with American carriers unopposed... that I don't know.Langenator wrote:Refresh me, was Iwo used to base P-51s to fly escort for B-29s in addition to being an emergency field?
Armchair General: Iwo Jima
- slowpoke
- Posts: 1231
- Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 4:09 pm
Re: Armchair General: Iwo Jima
"Islam delenda est" Aesop
- JustinR
- Posts: 1852
- Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:53 am
Re: Armchair General: Iwo Jima
I meant virtually unopposed by the Japanese navy by that point. Even some ships at Iwo and one escort carrier were damaged or sunk by kamikazes.Aesop wrote:American carriers were far from "unopposed", as the 33 ships sunk or severely damaged by 1500+ kamikaze attacks at Okinawa from April to June 1945 demonstrate.
P-51s were not simply a convenience until very late in the war.
"The armory was even better. Above the door was a sign: You dream, we build." -Mark Owen, No Easy Day
"My assault weapon won't be 'illegal,' it will be 'undocumented.'" -KL
"My assault weapon won't be 'illegal,' it will be 'undocumented.'" -KL
- JustinR
- Posts: 1852
- Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:53 am
Re: Armchair General: Iwo Jima
That's what I figured, but in reading it's been hard to separate fact from fiction, as some people have said US leadership at the time were desperate to justify the losses at Iwo Jima after the fact, and that most B-29 landings weren't emergencies. I would hazard a guess however with relatively young, inexperienced bomber crews, the great distances involved, combat damage, and unexpected jetstream winds, having Iwo as an available landing field DID save many lives and aircraft in the long run, plus as you said the availability of P-51's.slowpoke wrote: Quite necessary. The P51s annihilated their airforce and prevented and hindered the training of many kamikaze pilots. It also allowed the b29s to fly lower missions which significantly increased their bomb loads and leathality. Getting that island may not have been strictly necessary knowing the a bombs coming, but it provided a hell of a return, and may in fact have been necessary to pave the way for those bombers.
"The armory was even better. Above the door was a sign: You dream, we build." -Mark Owen, No Easy Day
"My assault weapon won't be 'illegal,' it will be 'undocumented.'" -KL
"My assault weapon won't be 'illegal,' it will be 'undocumented.'" -KL
-
- Posts: 8486
- Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:15 pm
Re: Armchair General: Iwo Jima
The B-29's weren't going to be intercepted by, or need escort from, the Japanese Navy.JustinR wrote:I meant virtually unopposed by the Japanese navy by that point.Aesop wrote:American carriers were far from "unopposed", as the 33 ships sunk or severely damaged by 1500+ kamikaze attacks at Okinawa from April to June 1945 demonstrate.
P-51s were not simply a convenience until very late in the war.
By the time of Iwo the IJN was done. Between ship losses, interdiction of their fuel supplies, their naval aviation having been destroyed recreated and destroyed again several times already getting weaker each time.... They were done.
The IJA, on the other hand, was *not* done. And the Army also had aviation, which we had not already wrecked several times over.
Maybe we're just jaded, but your villainy is not particularly impressive. -Ennesby
If you know what you're doing, you're not learning anything. -Unknown
Sanity is the process by which you continually adjust your beliefs so they are predictively sound. -esr
If you know what you're doing, you're not learning anything. -Unknown
Sanity is the process by which you continually adjust your beliefs so they are predictively sound. -esr
- JustinR
- Posts: 1852
- Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:53 am
Re: Armchair General: Iwo Jima
Ok, let me clarify what I meant here.Greg wrote: The B-29's weren't going to be intercepted by, or need escort from, the Japanese Navy.
By the time of Iwo the IJN was done. Between ship losses, interdiction of their fuel supplies, their naval aviation having been destroyed recreated and destroyed again several times already getting weaker each time.... They were done.
The IJA, on the other hand, was *not* done. And the Army also had aviation, which we had not already wrecked several times over.
Let's say you bypass invading Iwo Jima. Why can't carrier-based fighters launch to rendezvous with the B-29 formations and provide the same fighter escort that the P-51's did, and then return to their carriers?
"The armory was even better. Above the door was a sign: You dream, we build." -Mark Owen, No Easy Day
"My assault weapon won't be 'illegal,' it will be 'undocumented.'" -KL
"My assault weapon won't be 'illegal,' it will be 'undocumented.'" -KL
- Vonz90
- Posts: 4731
- Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:05 pm
Re: Armchair General: Iwo Jima
Yes this. Remember that the planning for Iwo Jima was flawed from the beginning because the intel was tremendously flawed. They thought Iwo was lightly defended and they would have a relatively easy time taking it, then get the benefit of having the airfield. Since the cost was way more than they bargained for, they ex post facto talked up the value of the asset.JustinR wrote:
That's what I figured, but in reading it's been hard to separate fact from fiction, as some people have said US leadership at the time were desperate to justify the losses at Iwo Jima after the fact
-
- Posts: 8486
- Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:15 pm
Re: Armchair General: Iwo Jima
You have to realize it was a major logistic feat, and also risky dangerous and expensive, to have a major carrier force stay on station to provide that kind of support for a time period of days. (It was only much later in the war when our carrier forces had grown enormously in power and the Japanese weakened, that we would try it at all.)JustinR wrote:Ok, let me clarify what I meant here.Greg wrote: The B-29's weren't going to be intercepted by, or need escort from, the Japanese Navy.
By the time of Iwo the IJN was done. Between ship losses, interdiction of their fuel supplies, their naval aviation having been destroyed recreated and destroyed again several times already getting weaker each time.... They were done.
The IJA, on the other hand, was *not* done. And the Army also had aviation, which we had not already wrecked several times over.
Let's say you bypass invading Iwo Jima. Why can't carrier-based fighters launch to rendezvous with the B-29 formations and provide the same fighter escort that the P-51's did, and then return to their carriers?
Also monopolizes a major portion of your fleet, and you might have other uses for that.
Maybe we're just jaded, but your villainy is not particularly impressive. -Ennesby
If you know what you're doing, you're not learning anything. -Unknown
Sanity is the process by which you continually adjust your beliefs so they are predictively sound. -esr
If you know what you're doing, you're not learning anything. -Unknown
Sanity is the process by which you continually adjust your beliefs so they are predictively sound. -esr
-
- Posts: 8486
- Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:15 pm
Re: Armchair General: Iwo Jima
Also possible the asset turned out to be more valuable than initially bargained for.Vonz90 wrote:Yes this. Remember that the planning for Iwo Jima was flawed from the beginning because the intel was tremendously flawed. They thought Iwo was lightly defended and they would have a relatively easy time taking it, then get the benefit of having the airfield. Since the cost was way more than they bargained for, they ex post facto talked up the value of the asset.JustinR wrote:
That's what I figured, but in reading it's been hard to separate fact from fiction, as some people have said US leadership at the time were desperate to justify the losses at Iwo Jima after the fact
I've read a few things that suggested, later in the war we consistently underestimated the number of aircraft available to Japan. In that context, having the P-51's on Iwo and the effect they had may have turned out more useful than initial expectations.
Maybe we're just jaded, but your villainy is not particularly impressive. -Ennesby
If you know what you're doing, you're not learning anything. -Unknown
Sanity is the process by which you continually adjust your beliefs so they are predictively sound. -esr
If you know what you're doing, you're not learning anything. -Unknown
Sanity is the process by which you continually adjust your beliefs so they are predictively sound. -esr
- MiddleAgedKen
- Posts: 2871
- Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 8:11 pm
- Location: Flyover Country
Re: Armchair General: Iwo Jima
Carrier fighters are pretty short-legged compared to P-51s, if memory serves (caveat: it may not). I'd also want to look at the service ceilings of F6Fs and F4Us (and more to the point, performance at altitude) before commenting further. B29s operated waaaaaay up there.JustinR wrote:Ok, let me clarify what I meant here.
Let's say you bypass invading Iwo Jima. Why can't carrier-based fighters launch to rendezvous with the B-29 formations and provide the same fighter escort that the P-51's did, and then return to their carriers?
Shop at Traitor Joe's: Just 10% to the Big Guy gets you the whole store and everything in it!
-
- Posts: 3969
- Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 5:59 pm
Re: Armchair General: Iwo Jima
My Dad earned a silver Star on Iwo. Just tossing that out there.
Hindsight is always 20/20. They expected it to be a cakewalk. It wasn't. Once they landed they had to take it. Intel notwithstanding, once you put the marines ashore you need to take the island.
Knowing then what we know now of course we might have done things differently. Nobody wanted to kill 6,000 marines and wound another 20,000. But they didn't know. They thkught t it was lightly defended and had a nice airfield we could use. They hadn't experienced the kind of defense the japs would use from then on, including if we'd invaded the home islands.
So imagine we bypassed Iwo jima. And maybe okinawa too. Then would we have dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Or would we have invaded and suffered a million more casualties?
Hindsight is always 20/20. They expected it to be a cakewalk. It wasn't. Once they landed they had to take it. Intel notwithstanding, once you put the marines ashore you need to take the island.
Knowing then what we know now of course we might have done things differently. Nobody wanted to kill 6,000 marines and wound another 20,000. But they didn't know. They thkught t it was lightly defended and had a nice airfield we could use. They hadn't experienced the kind of defense the japs would use from then on, including if we'd invaded the home islands.
So imagine we bypassed Iwo jima. And maybe okinawa too. Then would we have dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Or would we have invaded and suffered a million more casualties?