Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 10-11-2019, 12:55 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,951
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cabin_Fever View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul in Qatar
Just by the way, in my professional opinion, the US would have lost had it attempted to invade Japan. If someone want to talk about that we can.
Just a inquiry. Why do you think that. Granted, it would be a bloody mess on both sides.
Repeating the inquiry.

Because I think it would be a bloody mess on one side, and an absolute catastrophe on the other.
Quote:
As the Allies advanced towards Japan, conditions became steadily worse for the Japanese people. Japan's merchant fleet declined from 5,250,000 gross tons in 1941 to 1,560,000 tons in March 1945, and 557,000 tons in August 1945. Lack of raw materials forced the Japanese war economy into a steep decline after the middle of 1944. The civilian economy, which had slowly deteriorated throughout the war, reached disastrous levels by the middle of 1945. The loss of shipping also affected the fishing fleet, and the 1945 catch was only 22% of that in 1941. The 1945 rice harvest was the worst since 1909, and hunger and malnutrition became widespread. U.S. industrial production was overwhelmingly superior to Japan's. By 1943, the U.S. produced almost 100,000 aircraft a year, compared to Japan's production of 70,000 for the entire war. By the middle of 1944, the U.S. had almost a hundred aircraft carriers in the Pacific, far more than Japan's twenty-five for the entire war.
Cite. The Japanese had given up trying to stop the air raids, to conserve fuel for the expected invasion. However -
Quote:
While the Japanese military decided to resume attacks on Allied bombers from late June, by this time there were too few operational fighters available for this change of tactics to hinder the Allied air raids.
The US was not going to lose.

And they weren't going to be discouraged, either. They found out that the Japanese would fight to the last man in Okinawa, and expected the same for an invasion of mainland Japan - but they were planning to go ahead and invade anyway.

The US was going to finish the war, once and for all. Fortunately, the A-bomb came along, and shifted the calculus even more - from 'hundreds of thousands of Allied deaths vs. tens of millions of Japanese deaths" to "every man, woman and child in every city in Japan, one after another after another, vs. NO Allied deaths." Not a glorious death for the Emperor, taking your enemy with you in honorable defeat. Watching your cities go up in radioactive flame, one after another - and there is not one damn thing you can do about it.

Regards,
Shodan
  #102  
Old 10-11-2019, 02:31 PM
carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 59,101
Was it Admiral Halsey who said, "When we are finished with them, the only place Japanese will be spoken is in Hell", or Nimitz?
__________________
You callous bastard! More of my illusions have just been shattered!!-G0sp3l
  #103  
Old 10-11-2019, 02:32 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
Was it Admiral Halsey who said, "When we are finished with them, the only place Japanese will be spoken is in Hell", or Nimitz?
Halsey.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Willia...ick_Halsey,_Jr.


Nimitz seemed like a less colorful person.
  #104  
Old 10-11-2019, 02:33 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
Was it Admiral Halsey who said, "When we are finished with them, the only place Japanese will be spoken is in Hell", or Nimitz?
Totally sounds like something the rough spoken Halsey would say, though I don't know if it's just an anecdote or ever confirmed.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #105  
Old 10-11-2019, 02:43 PM
OttoDaFe's Avatar
OttoDaFe is offline
Sluice Gate Tender, FCD #3
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Soviet of Washington
Posts: 2,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
Was it Admiral Halsey who said, "When we are finished with them, the only place Japanese will be spoken is in Hell", or Nimitz?
Totally sounds like something the rough spoken Halsey would say, though I don't know if it's just an anecdote or ever confirmed.
I've read that he was overheard to mutter this when his command returned to Pearl Harbor the evening after the attack.

He did say, in a 1944 news conference, that "The only good Jap is a Jap who's been dead for six months." He then went on to say that he was committed to creating lots and lots of good Japs.
  #106  
Old 10-11-2019, 02:46 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by OttoDaFe View Post
I've read that he was overheard to mutter this when his command returned to Pearl Harbor the evening after the attack.

He did say, in a 1944 news conference, that "The only good Jap is a Jap who's been dead for six months." He then went on to say that he was committed to creating lots and lots of good Japs.
That totally sounds like him as well. He was often, um, colorful in his language and speech.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #107  
Old 10-11-2019, 08:36 PM
Jackmannii's Avatar
Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 32,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
BTW, lets not forget that just maybe 10 years prior the USA and japan had been friends. Many Americans had fond memories of the unique people, culture, and architecture of Japan.
Just wanted to mention that this "friendship" had already been fraying as far back as the Versailles Conference after WWI and the subsequent 5:5:3 naval agreement that left Japan contained as a naval force inferior to the British and Americans. Japanese imperialists resented this and were starting to push in the 1920s and 1930s for "Asia for Asians" (which of course meant Japan as the colonial power conquering and subjugating Asia).

Then there was anger in America over the Mukden incident and the Japanese takeover of Manchuria in 1931, following by Japan attacking China and committing atrocities there (Japanese planes sinking the U.S. gunboat Panay just inflamed things further).

Add in Pearl Harbor, killing of U.S. prisoners of war, the Bataan Death March etc. and there is absolutely no way the U.S. would've stopped short of total victory even if the Japanese had retreated from all their colonies back to the home islands and promised to be nice.

Last edited by Jackmannii; 10-11-2019 at 08:36 PM.
  #108  
Old 10-11-2019, 08:47 PM
carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 59,101
The USA convinced Great Britain to end a treaty with Japan. I believe this increased Japanese animosity with both countries.
  #109  
Old 10-12-2019, 02:05 AM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
The USA convinced Great Britain to end a treaty with Japan. I believe this increased Japanese animosity with both countries.
Not how it happened. Canada convinced the rest of the Empire, based upon wanting goodwill with the United States. America wasnt even at the Imperial Conference of 1921 , being as it wasnt part of the Empire.
  #110  
Old 10-12-2019, 05:05 AM
TokyoBayer's Avatar
TokyoBayer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 10,562
Quote:
Originally Posted by China Guy View Post
The US was planning for the invasion of Japan in 1945. It didn't matter whether or not Japan had retreated to the 4 main islands. FWIW, my father was on the planned invasion force, but Hiroshima and Nagasaki changed the equation.
[hijack]Unfortunately, the view that it was just the atomic bombs which ended the war is prevalent, but it’s only part of the story. It’s pretty well documented that the Soviet entry into the war was also a significant factor. Some historians believe that the Soviet entry was actually more important and the bombs were not a factor, While I have read their arguments, I can’t see how the two factors can be separated. The Japanese themselves talk about the “twin shocks” of both events.

The faction of the Big Six members of the War Council which was opposed to surrender had been holding out while they were waiting for their “Hail Mary pass” attempt – to have the Soviets negotiate a better ending to the war than a complete surrender. The Soviet entry into the war meant that they wouldn’t get better terms and the issue was forced.
  #111  
Old 10-12-2019, 10:22 AM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
The USA convinced Great Britain to end a treaty with Japan. I believe this increased Japanese animosity with both countries.
The animosity predated that. Some Japanese people feel that the United States betrayed Japan during the negotiations to end the Russo-Japanese War in 1905.
  #112  
Old 10-12-2019, 10:59 AM
carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 59,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
The animosity predated that. Some Japanese people feel that the United States betrayed Japan during the negotiations to end the Russo-Japanese War in 1905.
Teddy Roosevelt and the Portsmouth treaty. I'd forgotten about that.
Thanks, Little Nemo.
  #113  
Old 10-12-2019, 01:36 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by TokyoBayer View Post
[hijack]Unfortunately, the view that it was just the atomic bombs which ended the war is prevalent, but it’s only part of the story. It’s pretty well documented that the Soviet entry into the war was also a significant factor. Some historians believe that the Soviet entry was actually more important and the bombs were not a factor, While I have read their arguments, I can’t see how the two factors can be separated. The Japanese themselves talk about the “twin shocks” of both events.

The faction of the Big Six members of the War Council which was opposed to surrender had been holding out while they were waiting for their “Hail Mary pass” attempt – to have the Soviets negotiate a better ending to the war than a complete surrender. The Soviet entry into the war meant that they wouldn’t get better terms and the issue was forced.
That's just Soviet propaganda, like the fact they won WW2 all by themselves, since they took the most casualties.

While it is true that the entry of USSR ended one hope for a negotiated peace, Military losses wasnt going to do it. The Bomb allowed the Emperor to ask for peace, since it was something new.
  #114  
Old 10-12-2019, 08:09 PM
carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 59,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
That's just Soviet propaganda, like the fact they won WW2 all by themselves, since they took the most casualties.

While it is true that the entry of USSR ended one hope for a negotiated peace, Military losses wasnt going to do it. The Bomb allowed the Emperor to ask for peace, since it was something new.
I believe the Russians won WWII. Well, in more ways than one. They killed the most Germans, and kept the countries they "liberated" from the Nazis.
I do wish they hadn't been given US aid, so that the Russians and Germans had killed each other.

The only good thing about Russians is that they killed a lot of Germans.
The only good thing about Germans is that they killed a lot of Russians.

I believe that the bomb and the fact that the Russians wouldn't negotiate for terms, and would indeed invade Japan were equal factors in forcing a Japanese surrender. Fortunately all the Russians got were some Japanese islands they still argue over, and North Korea.
  #115  
Old 10-12-2019, 08:18 PM
Paul in Qatar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 12,946
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Repeating the inquiry.


Forgive me for not checking back. Very simply the Americans were very war-weary and were being force to play the Japanese game. The American manpower shortage was getting very bad by 1945.


Further, consider the kamikazes. They worked and the US Navy had no real solution. They were first-generation cruise missiles. Okinawa was bad enough, CORONET would have faced four times as many suicide planes, and offered four times as many targets.


You need to remember the Japanese path to "victory" involved the Americans invading. That was their plan. Furthermore, it basically worked.


The Japanese got a much sweeter deal than the Germans. A deal was done that the Emperor would not be hung by his neck as he so thoroughly deserved.
__________________
800-237-5055
Shrine Hospitals for Children (North America)
Never any fee
Do you know a child in need?
  #116  
Old 10-12-2019, 08:56 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul in Qatar View Post
Forgive me for not checking back. Very simply the Americans were very war-weary and were being force to play the Japanese game. The American manpower shortage was getting very bad by 1945.


Further, consider the kamikazes. They worked and the US Navy had no real solution. They were first-generation cruise missiles. Okinawa was bad enough, CORONET would have faced four times as many suicide planes, and offered four times as many targets.


You need to remember the Japanese path to "victory" involved the Americans invading. That was their plan. Furthermore, it basically worked.


The Japanese got a much sweeter deal than the Germans. A deal was done that the Emperor would not be hung by his neck as he so thoroughly deserved.
Like i said, my Dad served in Mac's HQ, the they were gung-ho for the invasion.

Nope, the navy solved them with destroyer pickets and a squad of fighters up all the time. Later, all the IJN could do was damage a destroyer. They were no longer such a menace.

Not at all, their plan was to damage the American fleet so bad we would be forced to negotiate.

The "deal" wasnt spelled out. And the Emperor was known to have been a figurehead- many Japanese leaders were convicted of warcrimes.
  #117  
Old Yesterday, 09:17 AM
Paul in Qatar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 12,946
I posted my previous reply in haste and it shows. I was heading out the door to the office.

I maintain that the invasions of Japan would have failed. Let me be more verbose.

Up until this point, the Americans had the advantage of mobility. The Island Campaign showed the American could avoid Japanese strong-points, letting them sit in isolation This held American (and perhaps Japanese) casualties down. But upon reaching the Home Islands, this advantage failed. Now we had to play the Japanese' game in their home court.

The Japanese had a strategy to avoid unconditional surrender. It was the model taught to them by the Chinese. It was the model the learned in the Island Campaign. They intended to prolong the fight and inflict unacceptable losses on the Americans. The American plan was more vague. Invade Kyushu (OLYMPIC) in November 1945 in order to gain bases needed for the invasion of Honshu (CORONET) in March 1946. The goal of the invasion of the Tokyo Plain was to take the capital and then something, something, something.

OLYMPIC would have been about four times the size of the invasion of Okinawa. That battle took 100 days and cost (the Americans) 13,000 killed and 37,000 injured for a round number of 50,000 casualties. (Note about a quarter of casualties are killed, or the number of casualties are three times the number killed.) Roughly we can say the OLYMPIC attack would have killed and hurt 200,000 Americans, four times the butcher's bill on Okinawa.

That is the best-case scenario. On Okinawa we had a numerical advantage. It was a small island and we basically had to kill most every Japanese soldier on it. At Kyushu the Japanese had as many defenders as we had attackers. These defenders were dug in, but once the land battle started they could be expected to attack the American forces for many months.

The Japanese Navy had gone away except for some small boats and 100 submarines. The Japanese Army had just about unlimited people. Less understood is that the Japanese Army and Naval Air Forces (they were working very well together) also had baskets of airplanes. Production of suicide aircraft did not end until the war did. Training of pilots continued. Aircraft and crews returned from China every day. American intelligence missed this at Okinawa, estimates were of 90 aircraft on Formosa, really there were 700. For Olympic the number of aircraft available would have been overwhelming.


They adopted a new strategy for OLYMPIC. Rather than going for the warships as they had previously, now their main targets were troopships. At Okinawa 36 US ships were sunk about 400 were damaged. If we multiply by four we get 140 sunk and 1,600 damaged. That would, I suppose be something like a Japanese victory. I admit those numbers seem high. Cut them in half. It still looks like a Japanese win.

The Japanese hoped to kill 20% of the landing force while they were still at sea. Just 10% would have been about 76,000 killed. That also looks like a Japanese win. Remember Okinawa was considered very bloody and it cost only 50,000 casualties (dead + injured). Just landing the landing force might have been an Okinawa all by itself.


All of the above ignores the atomic weapons. OK, let us include them. Marshall famously observed the impact of the atomic bombs was mostly physiological. It gave those who wanted to surrender an excuse to do so. Of course a large faction wanted to fight on anyway. What if they did?

After Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August the Americans would have horded their bombs, saving them for a November OLYMPIC. I have seen numbers that indicate they might have had six. Two for each of the landing zones. Had they been used on the defenders, the landings themselves would have been easier. (Of course nobody knew much about the effects of radiation.) But such attacks would not have bothered the better, more mobile units in holes further inland.


You indicate a belief that the Navy had solved the kamikaze problem. I see no indication of this. Fighter aircraft from Okinawa would have provided a heavy cover, but I suspect they still would have gotten through. I am eager to be educated on this. The kamikazes were first-generation cruise missiles and they still give sailors nightmares. While the US had gotten better in the months since Okinawa, so had the Japanese.


OK, there is a more complete discussion I ought to have posted this morning. I was limited by my need to go to work. Now I am heading off to dinner. I hope I was clearer with this note.
__________________
800-237-5055
Shrine Hospitals for Children (North America)
Never any fee
Do you know a child in need?
  #118  
Old Yesterday, 10:39 AM
madsircool is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
I believe the Russians won WWII. Well, in more ways than one. They killed the most Germans, and kept the countries they "liberated" from the Nazis.
I do wish they hadn't been given US aid, so that the Russians and Germans had killed each other.

The only good thing about Russians is that they killed a lot of Germans.
The only good thing about Germans is that they killed a lot of Russians.

I believe that the bomb and the fact that the Russians wouldn't negotiate for terms, and would indeed invade Japan were equal factors in forcing a Japanese surrender. Fortunately all the Russians got were some Japanese islands they still argue over, and North Korea.
The Soviets are also partially responsible for starting WWII through helping Germany rearm, supplying Germany raw materials and the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloto...ibbentrop_Pact that allowed the two countries to attack and divide Poland and allowed Germany to invade the West without the fear of a two front war. The Soviets never returned their conquered territory.

The Soviets did the majority of fighting against the Nazis. But they also enabled WWII. And for the peoples of Eastern Europe, WWII didnt end till 1989.
  #119  
Old Yesterday, 11:04 AM
carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 59,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by madsircool View Post
The Soviets are also partially responsible for starting WWII through helping Germany rearm, supplying Germany raw materials and the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloto...ibbentrop_Pact that allowed the two countries to attack and divide Poland and allowed Germany to invade the West without the fear of a two front war. The Soviets never returned their conquered territory.

The Soviets did the majority of fighting against the Nazis. But they also enabled WWII. And for the peoples of Eastern Europe, WWII didnt end till 1989.
The British declared war to liberate Poland, but the Russians kept it. In hindsight, I believe the Allies should have let Germany and Russia slug it out without lend lease. At the end of the war, there were too many Russians in Europe for the USA and Britain to retake Eastern Europe. I've read that at the end of hostilities, cargo ships in route to the Soviet Union were turned around mid ocean and steamed homeward.
  #120  
Old Yesterday, 11:14 AM
carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 59,101
Why the decision for invasion instead of blockade and an atom bomb every month on troop concentrations?
  #121  
Old Today, 08:06 AM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,951
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul in Qatar View Post
I posted my previous reply in haste and it shows. I was heading out the door to the office.

I maintain that the invasions of Japan would have failed.
Failed in the sense that they would have killed a lot of the Allied soldiers? Probably. Failed in the sense that the Allies would reconsider the invasion, and negotiated terms more favorable to the Japanese military government. I doubt that very much.

As mentioned, all the Allied plans for the invasion included estimates of Allied casualties in the hundreds of thousands. Yet they were still planning on going ahead with the invasion. I don't think they would have been surprised if their estimates were correct. Certainly not surprised enough to be discouraged.

The Normandy campaign cost over 220,000 Allied lives. But the Allies didn't stop until they were in Paris.
Quote:
The Japanese had a strategy to avoid unconditional surrender. It was the model taught to them by the Chinese. It was the model the learned in the Island Campaign. They intended to prolong the fight and inflict unacceptable losses on the Americans. The American plan was more vague. Invade Kyushu (OLYMPIC) in November 1945 in order to gain bases needed for the invasion of Honshu (CORONET) in March 1946. The goal of the invasion of the Tokyo Plain was to take the capital and then something, something, something.
As mentioned in the cite, the Japanese had committed almost everything they had in the defense of Kyushu. Once Kyushu was accomplished, the Japanese had nothing in reserve. It would certainly have been a bloodbath. But after the bloodbath, even if the Japanese populace (of starving old men, women, and children) had been inspired to fight to the death for the Emperor, how were they going to do it? Bamboo spears, against heavily armed GIs, who had learned that there were no non-combatants?
Quote:
OLYMPIC would have been about four times the size of the invasion of Okinawa. That battle took 100 days and cost (the Americans) 13,000 killed and 37,000 injured for a round number of 50,000 casualties. (Note about a quarter of casualties are killed, or the number of casualties are three times the number killed.) Roughly we can say the OLYMPIC attack would have killed and hurt 200,000 Americans, four times the butcher's bill on Okinawa.
Which was expected.
Quote:
At Kyushu the Japanese had as many defenders as we had attackers. These defenders were dug in, but once the land battle started they could be expected to attack the American forces for many months.
If the Japanese die at three or four or five times the rate that Allies die, it is not going to take months before they run out of defenders.
Quote:
At Okinawa 36 US ships were sunk about 400 were damaged. If we multiply by four we get 140 sunk and 1,600 damaged. That would, I suppose be something like a Japanese victory. I admit those numbers seem high. Cut them in half. It still looks like a Japanese win.

The Japanese hoped to kill 20% of the landing force while they were still at sea. Just 10% would have been about 76,000 killed. That also looks like a Japanese win.
WADR, this sounds like a repetition of one of the basic mistakes made by Imperial Japan even before they started the war.

They thought that America was weak and soft, and could be intimidated. That was the basis for their strategy for the war in Pacific - grab as much as they could, and count on the Americans to back down. It didn't work.

A victory where you lose five or ten times as many soldiers and aircraft and ships as the enemy is not much of a victory. If the idea is a war of attrition, the Japanese were going to lose, sooner rather than later.
Quote:
All of the above ignores the atomic weapons. OK, let us include them. Marshall famously observed the impact of the atomic bombs was mostly physiological. It gave those who wanted to surrender an excuse to do so. Of course a large faction wanted to fight on anyway. What if they did?

After Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August the Americans would have horded their bombs, saving them for a November OLYMPIC. I have seen numbers that indicate they might have had six.
The advantage of the A-bombs was that it made an invasion unnecessary. Assuming you are correct, and the Allies had six more bombs.

Six more Japanese cities cease to exist. Next month, another city disappears from the Japanese map. The month after that, another city.
Quote:
You indicate a belief that the Navy had solved the kamikaze problem. I see no indication of this. Fighter aircraft from Okinawa would have provided a heavy cover, but I suspect they still would have gotten through. I am eager to be educated on this. The kamikazes were first-generation cruise missiles and they still give sailors nightmares. While the US had gotten better in the months since Okinawa, so had the Japanese.
Quote:
Allied pilots were more experienced, better trained and in command of superior aircraft, making the poorly trained kamikaze pilots easy targets. The U.S. Fast Carrier Task Force alone could bring over 1,000 fighter aircraft into play. Allied pilots became adept at destroying enemy aircraft before they struck ships.

Allied gunners had begun to develop techniques to negate kamikaze attacks. Light rapid fire anti-aircraft weapons such as the 40 mm Bofors and 20 mm Oerlikon autocannons were highly effective,[32] but heavy anti-aircraft guns such as the 5"/38 caliber gun (127 mm) had the punch to blow kamikazes out of the air, which was preferable since even a heavily damaged kamikaze could complete its mission.[33] The speedy Ohkas presented a very difficult problem for anti-aircraft fire, since their velocity made fire control extremely difficult. By 1945, large numbers of anti-aircraft shells with radio frequency proximity fuzes, on average seven times more effective than regular shells, became available, and the U.S. Navy recommended their use against kamikaze attacks.
Cite.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lieutenant Commander Iwatani, Taiyo (Ocean) magazine, March 1945
I cannot predict the outcome of the air battles, but you will be making a mistake if you should regard Special Attack operations as normal methods. The right way is to attack the enemy with skill and return to the base with good results. A plane should be utilized over and over again. That’s the way to fight a war. The current thinking is skewed. Otherwise, you cannot expect to improve air power. There will be no progress if flyers continue to die.
Also -
Quote:
Originally Posted by French Marshal Pierre Bosquet
C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre. ("It is magnificent, but it is not war.")
And of course
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Patton
You don't win a war by dying for your country. You win a war by making the other poor son of a bitch die for his country.
Regards,
Shodan
  #122  
Old Today, 10:36 AM
Corry El is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,876
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Allied gunners had begun to develop techniques to negate kamikaze attacks. Light rapid fire anti-aircraft weapons such as the 40 mm Bofors and 20 mm Oerlikon autocannons were highly effective,[32] but heavy anti-aircraft guns such as the 5"/38 caliber gun (127 mm) had the punch to blow kamikazes out of the air, which was preferable since even a heavily damaged kamikaze could complete its mission.[33] The speedy Ohkas presented a very difficult problem for anti-aircraft fire, since their velocity made fire control extremely difficult. By 1945, large numbers of anti-aircraft shells with radio frequency proximity fuzes, on average seven times more effective than regular shells, became available, and the U.S. Navy recommended their use against kamikaze attacks.
I'll nitpick Wikipedia there. Radio proximity aka VT fuses for 5" guns were introduced to combat by the USN in early 1943. By the time organized 'special attack' operations by the Japanese started in late 1944 they were standard. They weren't used exclusively but that was on purpose. Doctrine was to fire some time fused shells, 1 in 4 was a rule of thumb, to give feedback on the fire control solution, at least in longer range fire controlled by ships main AA directors capable of generating time fuze settings. That is, if the time fuse shells were going off far from the target that showed that the fire control solution was wrong and the VT fuse shells are also far off. Sometimes by 1945 individual 5"mounts were directed in short range fire by 40mm gun directors, which had no ability to calculate time fuze settings, then they'd fire just VT.

VT fuzes for hand loaded 3" AA guns and light cruiser 6" main guns were available in 1945 and not much earlier but those were smaller in number compared to 5", also lacked sophisticated AA fire control in both cases. 40mm proximity fuzes only appeared in the 1970's. The USN's rush project was to replace the 40mm with an autoloading version of the 3" firing VT only, the first production ones weren't complete till late 1947 (that's an error in wiki article on the 3"/50 saying introduced from 1946), might have been accelerated if war continued but not a major factor.

So, there wasn't much technological advancement in USN AA gunnery between the appearance of widespread kamikaze tactics in late 1944 and a prospective invasion of Japan in late 1945. There were *more* 40mm mounts per ship though, in particular special programs sacrificing 20mm and removing some or all torpedo tubes from destroyers to free up space/weight for more 40mm mounts.

And by late 1945 the carrier based TBM-3W airborne early warning a/c would have been available, by early '46 in actual history landbased PB-1W's (B-17's) became operational, which might have been accelerated. Their APS-20 radar was ahead of its time, the British used it in the AEW version of the Shackleton until 1991.

But generally the likely qualitative difference in kamikaze threat by November 1945 would have been decline on Japanese side. A larger % of the available ca. 10,000 operational Japanese a/c at the end of the war were non-combat types, most of the ~2500 special attack sorties before that were using combat types, sometimes even modern ones*, though also some non-combat types. Pilot resources also worse, a lot the actual special attack missions were by pilots at least partly trained for conventional operations, sometimes fairly experienced men. It's a myth that they all minimally trained. But the larger number in invasion of Japan would mostly have been minimally trained. Too little fuel for anything else; the fuel shortage could even have limited suicide operations directly.

On land aspect I'd note that the size of Kyushu as a target cut both ways. It held a large IJA force bigger on paper than US attacking force would have been, but large area also meant the defending force had to be more dispersed to defend all avenues of attack and the attacking force had more room for maneuver than in cases like Okinawa or particularly Iwo Jima where every square foot had to be seized. Also we'd have to consider the execrable performance of the Kwantung Army in Manchuria/Korea against the Soviets in Aug 1945. It was a hollow force in equipment and training, belying its large manpower strength on paper, and put forth an effort arguably well below previous fanatical IJA resistance in the island campaigns. In some cases IJA units fought to the last man v the Soviets, but in others they withdrew in the face of Soviet attacks, even prior to Aug 15.

In general one has to consider the very real possibility of a diminution of Japanese morale. It's worst case and not necessarily realistic to assume absolute across the board sustained fanatical resistance by the Japanese, especially when anachronistically superimposing later Korea/Vietnam era war weariness onto the US side. Maybe the US public would have eventually turned against heavy losses in a Japan invasion, possibly even US military morale collapsed. But that was not in sight pre A bomb, where the universal assumption was a still long and bloody road ahead to defeating Japan. Nobody was happy about that, but no real public opposition to it as a policy in principal.

*detailed special attack mission lists in Japanese sources show that over half of JNAF special attack sorties were Type 0 Fighters (obsolescent as a fighter but still fast for an attack a/c) or Suisei ('Judy') divebombers (modern). About half of JAAF suicide sorties were Type 1 ('Oscar'), Type 3 ('Tony') or Type 4 ('Frank') fighters, again ranging from obsolescent but not easy to intercept to modern. Big fleets of trainers would been more of a mainstay in post Aug 1945 special attack.

Last edited by Corry El; Today at 10:41 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:25 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017