Has military technology and doctrine evolved such that, some 60 years later, the US military today would conduct the Iwo Jima operation significantly differently than it did in WW II?
In other words, were the US to face the same objective today–i.e., the “winning” of Iwo Jima–would our military leaders likely follow the same basic strategy, or would satellite intelligence, bunker-busting bombs, infrared technology, etc. make the mission considerably less difficult and bloody for our side?
My guess is that we would bury them alive with armored vehicles fitted with earth-moving blades, and hit any exposed fortifications with PGMs. It would be a very one-sided battle.
Bunker-busters and cruise missles. With no civilians on the island, the gloves would come off and we would deploy the most powerful non-nuclear weapons we have. Then helicopter in, set up a landing area, then bring in the heavy equipment.
The original invasion involved a lot of naval bombardment. In fact, British and Australian ships were involved to add to the weight of fire. The Japanese were dug in very deeply, and the invasion was so costly because the days of intense bombardment did not materially affect the Japanese emplacements (they wisely kept a lot of their artillery deep inside caves until the troop landings forced the shelling to stop).
The truth is, Iwo Jima would still be a tough nut to crack. As Afghanistan has proven, even bunker-busters and sustained bombardment aren’t terribly effective. The big advantage would come from precision air support after the infantry invasion started. Gunships and ground attack aircraft could make life difficult, although if the defenders resorted to true guerrilla fighting, it would be a very costly affair.
Except there won’t be any guerilla fighting, since there aren’t any civilians on the island. Everyone who isn’t on our side gets shot. In Afghanistan you don’t want to shoot villagers who are neutrals or even potential allies or intelligence sources. On Iwo Jima you get to shoot everything that moves.
And Iwo Jima is accessable by ship instead of isolated in the mountains. Taliban fighters could slip in and out of Tora Bora by hidden trails and tunnels. On Iwo Jima the defenders are totally isolated. And we can easily bring up any heavy equipment by ship once we’ve cleared a beachhead. For the Tora Bora operation everything had to be airlifted. On Iwo Jima you can park a carrier just offshore, you can bombard from battleships (or missile cruisers, we’d have to bring battleships out of mothballs), you can easily resupply your ground forces by ship.
And of course, nowadays our standoff firepower is much heavier and much more accurate.
This is my understanding. The Navy pounded the hell out of Iwo–thousands and thousands of rounds.
>> I need to stipulate that this scenario assumes that Iwo has already been provisioned with materiel. Otherwise the US Navy today could sink the supply ships before they arrived.
From Wiki:
By the end of the year, General Kuribayashi had available to him 361 artillery pieces of 75 mm or larger caliber, a dozen 320 mm mortars, 65 medium (150 mm) and light (81 mm) mortars, 33 naval guns 80 mm or larger, and 94 anti-aircraft guns 75 mm or larger. In addition, the Iwo Jima defenses could boast of more than two hundred 20 mm and 25 mm antiaircraft guns and sixty-nine 37 mm and 47 mm antitank guns. The fire power of the artillery was further supplemented with a variety of rockets varying from an eight-inch type that weighed 90 kg and could travel 2–3 km, to a giant 250 kg projectile that had a range of more than 7 km. Altogether, 70 rocket guns and their crews reached Iwo Jima.
The Japanese were quick to discover that the black volcanic ash that existed in abundance all over the island could be converted into concrete of superior quality when mixed with cement. Pillboxes were constructed of reinforced concrete, many of them with walls four feet thick. An elaborate system of caves, concrete blockhouses, and pillboxes was established. One of the results of American air attacks and naval bombardment in the early summer of 1944 had been to drive the Japanese so deep underground that eventually their defenses became virtually immune to air or naval bombardment.
At 02:00 on February 19, battleship guns signaled the commencement of D-Day. Soon 100 bombers attacked the island, followed by another volley from the naval guns. At 08:30, the first of an eventual 30,000 Marines of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th Marine Divisions, under V Amphibious Corps, landed on the Japanese island of Iwo Jima and a battle for the island commenced.
Cruise missiles, IIRC, have a rather small yield compared to the big mutha gravity bombs. I’m not sure how much more damage a cruise missile would pack than a sustained volley from an 8-inch gun.
I’m guessing modern surveillance (Predator drones, infrared, etc) would help us determine the location of the enemy with much greater precision, meaning our bombs would go toi the right places and do a lot more damage before the grunts landed.
I’m not comparing a sustained volley of 8-inch guns to one cruise missile, of course. That said, maybe most attack scenarios today are geared toward precision-guided missiles (PGMs), not shelling from ships. A quick review of the armament in modern cruisers and destroyers doesn’t seem to show any large guns. Since the big battleships have been mothballed, I suppose this attack scenario would entail a mix of gravity bombs and PGMs.
But of course, a couple of dozen artillery rounds that don’t land on your bunker don’t do much against you. One precision-guided missile that goes down your ventilation duct can ruin your whole day.
I’m not sure that the large collection of heavy guns would be of much value in a modern battle. Counter-battery radar systems allow a gun to be accurately targeted while its first shell is still in the air. Static gun emplacements would be quickly destroyed.
Cruise missiles are worth bupkiss against the sort of defenses the Japanese had, as are pretty much all of the conventional weapons in the current US arsenal. These defenses were taking direct hits from 2700 lb high explosive rounds, repeatedly, with no appreciable effect. Many people over-estimate the effectiveness of even the most modern weapons. Forty feet of volcanic rock is damn close to impregnable in practical terms. And, you can’t be lobbing munitions of that power once your own grunts hit the beach, so you’re reduced to pop-up tactics to try and keep the enemies’ heads down.
Our standoff power is much less, not more. During WWII we had 16" and 8" guns with the ability to fire away for days on end. The most we have now are 5" guns. I’ll grant that our PGM are much more, well precise, but our ability to put weight on target is much less. And the Marine Corps bemoans Navy’s lack of firepower.
Question for the OP: Why do we want Iwo in this scenario? It makes a difference. If all we want to do in neutralise it, then a nuke will do the job nicely. No need to invade at all. Other than as an airstrip for by today’s standards short-ranged bombers, it isn’t like the property has any intrinsic value.
Not that I would be too sure to approve, but assuming we have the Japanese of WWII and we had the capabilities of today than then I have to go with Ripley’s advise in Aliens:
Of course I’m seeing that step as likely in a historical context, If it was me in command I would drop one nuclear bunker buster, wait a day and then send a note demanding surrender to anyone remaining. If no surrender, repeat as needed.