100% Success Rate for Amphibious Invasions?

[Warmaker]

Well, in regards to the proposed invasion of the Japanese home islands, I for one am glad that didn't have to happen. First of all, we all know the Japanese were quite fanatical in battle. Yes, few surrendered and the numbers went up when reaching late '44-'45 but by and large the Japanese did not surrender (explains the large numbers KIA). In general, esp. when the U.S. Marines and Japanese were fighting it seemed to take on a more "personal" level... no quarter given by any side. Second, the Japanese learned harsh lessons from earlier in the war about trying to oppose the landings by the U.S. They knew the American supporting arms' firepower would be too great so they decided to fortify the interior of their defenses and resulted in high casualties for the U.S.

Taking these into account, the powers that be in the U.S. military still believed the invasion of mainland Japan would succeed but with very high casualties for both sides. Some may have argued though of some really high expected casualty figures for the U.S. to "justify" the use of the Atomic Bombs to negate the use of the invasion in the discussions of the postwar years. The number of Japanese deaths were expected to have been higher in the event of an invasion versus the numbers killed in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

BTW, had a chance to visit Iwo Jima in '97. Pretty weird and it really did have that slight sulphuric smell. There's also a memorial on top of Mt. Suribachi that commemorates the fallen of both the U.S. and Japan. That and the island just seemed waaay to small for the number of people killed there.

[ 04-22-2001: Message edited by: Warmaker ]

[Kanonier Reichmann]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

I have toyed with the idea, though I can claim no support for it, that the Dieppe raid was staged to show the Americans how unrealsitic their eagerness to stage a cross-channel invasion was. Like I say, I haven't the slightest shred of documentary proof for the notion and it seems pretty far-fetched to think of Churchill et al sacrificing that many men just to win a debating point...

Michael

[ 04-10-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wouldn't surprise me. Churchill had a bit of a history of sacrificing Commonwealth troops (as opposed to British troops) on lost causes. e.g. Australian & NZ forces in Greece, same again in Singapore and of course Canadian forces at Dieppe. Not one of his admirable qualities in my opinion.

Regards

Jim R.

[Aacooper]

The Japanese landed troops on Milne Bay in New Guinea, but the Australians had gotten there first. The Japanese landings were successful, but the Australians repelled the Japanese attack. The Japanese did succeed in rescuing some of their troops.

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

same again in Singapore and of course Canadian forces at Dieppe. Not one of his admirable qualities in my opinion.

.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Canadians volunteered for Dieppe and participated in the planning. They had the power to veto the raid at any time though of course there were political constraints on that ability. While at sea, the army commander fell under command of the naval commander, so the decision to turn back after bumping into the German convoy, IIRC, was out of Robert's hands - but I am not sure what his feelings on that were anyway -it's possible he preferred to press on.

Churchill had little to do with it, and there is evidence (as Loring-Villa points out) that Dieppe was launched without the knowledge or permission of Churchill and the Chiefs of Staff.

[Skipper]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:

Is Nova Zemlaya etc part of the Novorossisk offensive in 1943? IIRC a very large Sov force tried to outflank the German line there, but I don't know what the result was.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The bridgehead was secured, and thus german defensive lines were indeed outflanked, but it had to be held against heavy german attacks and soviets could not launch operations from it. Only 7 months later they manage to concentate forces to assault Novorossiysk both by sea landing AND from the bridgehead. The assault succeeded, german defences in Caucasus collapsed, orderly withdrawal was turned into hasty evacuation. If one is to believe Brezhnev, german situation after that became so desperate, that the last german convoy leaving the east coast of Black Sea had to round up locals and put them clearly visible on deck, so as not to be sunk.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aacooper:

The Japanese landed troops on Milne Bay in New Guinea, but the Australians had gotten there first. The Japanese landings were successful, but the Australians repelled the Japanese attack. The Japanese did succeed in rescuing some of their troops.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point, I'd forgotten about that. Milne Bay was the IJF's first land based defeat (as opposed to the first Wake Island where they never really got an initial foothold) and the precursor to many more to come over time.

Regards

Jim R.

[LimShady]

Also forgot to add the Japanese landing on the Bataan pennisula.

Chris