Markus
Banned
20,000 KIA indicates six or seven times that number of WIA. Even 100,000 KIA+WIA in one day is too much. IIRC the worst estimates were 400,000 casulaties of all kinds for the whole operation.
Operation Downfall - The Invasion of Japan
- Thread starter Chilperic
- Start date
20,000 KIA indicates six or seven times that number of WIA. Even 100,000 KIA+WIA in one day is too much. IIRC the worst estimates were 400,000 casulaties of all kinds for the whole operation.
farwalker, so you condemn the use of the atomic bomb, instead suggesting the US should have resorted to starvation and conventional bombing, which within a month would have meant a death toll exceeding Hiroshima and Nagasaki and by the end of the year involved a death toll in the millions?
Forgive me if I fail to see the moral advantage to this.
Forgive me if I fail to see the moral advantage to this.
I would seriously doubt that the terms would have improved, at least in time to prevent a few MILLION deaths from starvation. After the two nuclear weapons were used, there was STILL a fairly serious coup attempt to prevent the surrender message from being broadcast.
The case for the Japanese being ready to surrender as soon as they were able to find a comfortable place to fall over lacks any sort of reasonable evidence. It, in very large part, overlays 1970's AMERICAN attitudes onto the mid-1940's Japanese Government (which, being a dictatorship, didn't much care about public opinion), something that is silly even at first blush.
The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved a couple million Japanese civilians from death, crippling disease, or birth defect related to the condition of their mothers. It also saves tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of Allied troops fron death or dismemberment.
War, by its very nature is horrific. It is horrific enough that it is something to be avoided. Japan's leadership sort of forgot that. It was a dreadful error.
I suggest no such thing, I was merely pointing to the fact that there was a likelyhood of a negotiated settlement had the war and blockade gone on longer, after all there were more rational elements within the japanese government. I was condeming the firebombing of civilian targets, which by any moral standard is a war crime.
I wasn't arguing that the blockade was moraly superior (although one could argue the point, I'm not).
In any case the point is moot, this is AH and the scenario is interesting...
Last edited:
IMHO there would have been popular uprisings before this occured, in fact the Japanese leadership was quite concerned about this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_surrender
Dictatorships care a great deal about public opinion, given that an unhappy population is much more likely to violently overthrow them than in a 'democracy' where the malcontents can be lulled into beleiving they actually have a say.
Does not killing people you were threatening to kill (or starving to death, or putting in harm's way) count as saving lives?
On this point we are in agreement.
Cheers,
Last edited:
Nitpick, he said 13 ships not 23! But even 13 is pretty high, considering the presence of strong CAP.
So would you guys say there is much point in me carrying on, or is it too ASB
Its not that it's ASB - Continue, but do more research, PM CalBear or somebody -
Everyone knows that other than the atom bomb, the US have Le May's bomber fleets to singe the heck out of Japan - you've got to provide an answer as to why the US didn't just keep firebombing. They weren't in any hurry (OK, maybe they were, but not hurried enough to risk 400,000 lives) and casualties weren't pressing them (The casualty rates for B-29 pilots were actually higher in TRAINING than bombing Japan in 1945) also they had little or no moral scruples at the time - So, what's the cassus belli?
Oh, BTW, do the British and her allies support this in any way? They had one or two carriers AFAIK - with better protected decks againts Kamikazes.
Six, actually: Victorious, Formidable, Illustrious, Indomitable, Implacable, and Indefatigable. All with smaller air groups than American vessels, and not all in service at one time (some had already been knocked around in one war).
In addition, there were a number of slower carriers on the stocks or even coming out to the Pacific. One of the later ones was the Hermes, of Falklands War fame.
And there were some larger fleet carriers building.
burmafrd
Banned
The armored decks of the British carriers afforded them much better protection against Kamikaze's; however the extra weight that high up
in the ship cost them: much smaller aircraft groups and their capability of fuel storage was much smaller- they were very short legged.
All in all its hard to decide which carrier was better to have at that time. Up till the Kamikaze's it was easy to see the US carrier design was much more versatile and effective.
in the ship cost them: much smaller aircraft groups and their capability of fuel storage was much smaller- they were very short legged.
All in all its hard to decide which carrier was better to have at that time. Up till the Kamikaze's it was easy to see the US carrier design was much more versatile and effective.
Markus
Banned
IMO Kamikazes don´t change that. More planes, means better offensive and defensive capabilities, so you will get hit less in the first place. And in case of hits, even US CVs usually did not suffer much damage.
They could provide some more air cap. - sources for British activity in the Pacific in 1945 are quite rare, I remember a guy from England telling me that when his Grandpa returned from the Pacific Front from some carrier the British people around him didn't even know there were any more carriers in the Pacific.
Markus said:
Effective damage control?
Absolutely. Even before the Lexington was lost the USN held damage control to near religious status (afterwards... deified is just a slight overstatement). IIRC it was the first navy to establish a specific training course for Damage Control officers and to train units of sailors on the rather special skill set needed. The USN also, more than most, recognized carriers as being a floating collection of combustible items.
Markus
Banned
That and not too much damage in the first place. Not all hit the flight deck and not all who did penetrated it. Coming in at a shallow angle could result in the plane sort of sliding across the deck. but I´m sure Cal Bear knows more about these things.
Furthermore the open hangar and the armoured hangar deck often limited damage to the uncritical areas above the hangar deck.
The best features of the American carrier, at least related to battle damage, were the wooden flight decks and the open hanger space ABOVE the armored deck. An American carrier, especially later in the war, could take a serious hit and be back conducting air operations in a few hours. This wasn't always the case, witness the Franklin, but it often was. The deck was quick to repair, which was why the U.S. preferred the wood to metal, and the open hanger design, although a pain in really heavy seas, allowed blast effect to vent outward (compared to ships, espedially the Japanese carriers, with tightly enclosed hangers that allowed maximum blast effect AND trapped fuel and oil vapor).
As far as the kamakazi itself, the biggest problem was that most of them couldn't really fly. They'd had basic flight school, but hitting a 30 knot target thats doing its level best to avoid being hit takes some skills. There were, as you point out, a LOT of glancing blows, where the plane either literally skipped off the deck, and near misses where they just flat missed the ship. Since most of them didn't carry really large bombs (many of the trainers couldn't get airborne with more than a 100kg weapon as payload) near misses didn't do as much damage as an actual near miss by a bomb, which would generally be 225 or 550 kg.
Still, there were LOTS of kamakazis and they would have been a much larger problem except for several American tactical adjustments:
1) Increasing the number of fighters carried, sometimes by 100% from pre-war levels. This wasn't a bad as it initially appears, since by 1945 the fighters could carry as large of a bombload as many dive bombers.
2) Radar picket destroyers. These poor brave bastards are the mostly unsung heros of the kamakazi battles. They were posted as much as fifty miles out from the main fleet, along the threat axis to provide an additional half hour or so warning to the fleet. Of course, being the first Yankee ship the kamakazis saw, and since most of the pilots couldn't tell a destroyer from a battleship, it could get very interesting to be the radar picket. There are documented cases of A (singular) picket being attacked by 30-40 planes, especially once the Japanese figured out their mission. It sucks to be a pawn in a chess match.
3) This last one is less of a tactic than a technological breakthrough. The proximity fuse made a fairly effective weapon, the 5"/45 into a real killer, by spring of '45 they were even introducing 40mm shells with the damned things. Absolutely shredded the attacking aircraft.
Kamakazis would have been a problem, especially against troop transports, but in the fairly short term they would have been wiped out. Once they started to fly, the hidden airstrips would have been located, with the resulting bomber attacks and fighter groups lurking nearby night and day. By the time the invasion started, most of the 8th, 9th & 15th Air Forces would have been in theater, with all the fighters that had sawed the Luftwaffe off at the knees flying out of Okinawa. That would have put around 1,000 first line fighters (mostly P-51 & P-47) within easy flight range of the Kyushu bases. That would have been in addition to the 1,000 or so Hellcats and Corsairs on Mitscher's fast carriers and an additional 700-800 on the CVE force.
I keep wondering why they kept the 'door-knocker' 20mm. Of course, it wasn't because of its hitting power - why didn't they just move 'em out for 40mm?
An even greater killer was the 3"/50, but at the time it wasn't widely serviced yet, and lacking crews. But hell, its as effective as 2 quad 40s - any chance of it getting to service earlier?
burmafrd
Banned
The Japanese had plans to disperse the Kamikaze's around roads and open fields and anywhere they could take off from (since landing was not a problem). The CAP and anti air operations would have slaughtered them, but when you are talking 500 planes per attack and they expected to use them all in the first 3-4 days after the invasion, if only 10% got to their targets that is 50 planes per assault. And there would have been 8-10 assaults. It would have been very bloody to say the least. Anyone trying to claim that thousands on our side and 10's of thousands on their side would have died are fools. Frankly I would think around 100,000 casualties on our side and around 1 million on theirs.
Markus
Banned
I´d like to make a few remarks.
The USS Franklin is a good example in this context. First she was attcked by a conventional bomber and second the bomb(s) penetrated the hangar deck. I´m pretty sure a bomb dropped by a dive/glide bomber has a higher speed than one attacked to a kamikaze aircraft, meaning the bomb alone has a better chance of detonating where it can do some lasting damage.Second, was the Franklin on general quarters or on a lower state of alert? IIRC the latter, because they had been on GC for too long and needed some food and rest.
Are you sure about 40mm VT-shells? NavWeaps says 3inch was as small as they could make them in 45.
A 30 knot target thats doing its level best to avoid being hit - They did no longer conduct evasive manouvers at this time, because wild manouvers screwed up the AA´s firing data and might lead to collisions.
@Slamet: The 20mm gun was smaller and lighter than the Bofors. You could put a lot of them in places where a 40mm won´t fit. And if director controlled they were even more accurate. Furthermore you don´t need to destroy the kamikaze ouright, a small change in the flightpath might result in a near miss or glancing blow.
I'll review my references on the VT fuse. I thought I'd read recently they had them in 40mm, on the other hand, NavWeps is generally extremely accurate.
The Franklin was hit by a convention bomb, but it managed to gut her very nicely. I was mostly pointing out that carriers, even with everything mentioned before, could be killed although it wasn't easy.
The best thing about the 20mm was the morale boosting effect. They threw up masses of fire and seemed to greatly improve the chances for the ship to knock down the attackers.