usa did not "island hop"

[blueczar]

suppose that the US did not bypass japanese forces and insisted upon getting every island cleared of japanese before moving on in the pacific war in WW2. How much longer would the war have taken? I am especially thinking of the japanese fortress at rabaul (http://www.milart.com.au/rabaul/AATunnels.htm) which was bypassed. Say they had tried to take all of the dutch east indies, south east asia, even china, before attacking the japanese home islands. (youre not allowed to use nukes to end the war early)

[Michael B]

suppose that the US did not bypass japanese forces and insisted upon getting every island cleared of japanese before moving on in the pacific war in WW2. How much longer would the war have taken? I am especially thinking of the japanese fortress at rabaul (http://www.milart.com.au/rabaul/AATunnels.htm) which was bypassed. Obviously longer because they are clearing territory than they didn't on OTL

Say they had tried to take all of the dutch east indies, south east asia, even china, before attacking the japanese home islands. (youre not allowed to use nukes to end the war early) Some general or admiral would have stepped forward and pointed out the stupidity of it. In wartime economy of effort makes sense. Just as there was no need for the Allies in the West to take Norway (take Germany and Norway falls like a ripe plum), there was no obvious need of cleaning out each piece of Japanese Empire when if Japan falls the rest fall.

The US Navy and USAAF totally outclassed the Japanese. The former was used to isolate each island or clusters of islands of the empire so they couldn't easily support each other. Once the latter could be deployed in range of Japan, it was used to reduce cities to matchsticks and ashes.

Result: a blockade in concert with a single minded drive to Japan.

[blueczar]

The US Navy and USAAF totally outclassed the Japanese.

True but the army in the jungle had alot more trouble. It took the allies 1 year to take the Solomon Islands and 2 years to take New Guinea. There were also Japanese inland in the Phillipines which were not defeated

[tinfoil]

It would probably have been somewhat more bloody if they attacked on a 'broader front', but if you assume that they still would have reached B29 range of Japan by August of '45, Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have created the same outcome on almost the same schedule.

Conceivably, the diversion of resources for a broader war MIGHT have bought 'Fortress Europe' a bit more time, but this would probably only be measured in weeks, not months. The Battle of Berlin was mostly dictated by the Soviet's ability to advance, rather than Germany's ability to hold (although an eastern-front 'Battle of the Bulge' might be interest to construct!)

[blueczar]

It would probably have been somewhat more bloody if they attacked on a 'broader front', but if you assume that they still would have reached B29 range of Japan by August of '45, Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have created the same outcome on almost the same schedule.

Conceivably, the diversion of resources for a broader war MIGHT have bought 'Fortress Europe' a bit more time, but this would probably only be measured in weeks, not months. The Battle of Berlin was mostly dictated by the Soviet's ability to advance, rather than Germany's ability to hold (although an eastern-front 'Battle of the Bulge' might be interest to construct!)

How about if the nuclear weapons were used tactically against Japanese fortresses in the jungle such as Rabaul? Perhaps the Japanese could come out from where they were hiding in the philipines to re-take Manila in the eastern battle of the bulge scenario?

[David S Poepoe]

Some general or admiral would have stepped forward and pointed out the stupidity of it. In wartime economy of effort makes sense. Just as there was no need for the Allies in the West to take Norway (take Germany and Norway falls like a ripe plum), there was no obvious need of cleaning out each piece of Japanese Empire when if Japan falls the rest fall.

The US Navy and USAAF totally outclassed the Japanese. The former was used to isolate each island or clusters of islands of the empire so they couldn't easily support each other. Once the latter could be deployed in range of Japan, it was used to reduce cities to matchsticks and ashes.

Result: a blockade in concert with a single minded drive to Japan.

Absolutely right. I believe that the first instance of 'island hopping' is actually mentioned in Hector Bywater's "Great Pacific War".

[Michael B]

How about if the nuclear weapons were used tactically against Japanese fortresses in the jungle such as Rabaul? Perhaps the Japanese could come out from where they were hiding in the philipines to re-take Manila in the eastern battle of the bulge scenario? I wouldn't want to comment on the exact amount of damage a 1945 20kt nuc would do, but with them in such short supply, their use is going to be carefully targeted. In fact at the time it was suggested that a demonstration of one on an unpopulated island for the Japanese to review the results would encourage them to surrender. That as we know wasn't done and a city hit instead.

When the number of nuclear weapons is less than the fingers on one hand, using one to demolish a fortress on the periphery doesn't make too much military sense.

[Aldroud]

I expect that, in the case of a broad front war with Japan, the use of chemical weapons would be seriously considered. While there are reports of isolated instances of chemical weapons being used in the Pacific theater, there was no general acceptance of using them. In the face of trying to take some of the fortresses the Japanese had constructed, perhaps the use of chemical weapons would have been required to prevent devestating Allied casualties.