The Allies were considering Taiwan as a place to invade in World War 2 but was afraid to do it due to high casualties. How dangerous would an invasion be?
How dangerous is an Allied invasion of Taiwan in World War 2?
- Thread starter Admiral Bloonbeard
- Start date
The Kingdom of Yugoslavia in exile
It's the US. The US are historically the ones who looked into this possibility, and they did so before the Commonwealth forces had moved beyond their local campaigns within the Indo-Pacific Theatre so their involvement is more or less completely off the table unless the US goes after Taiwan really late (like as a warm up for Japan itself).
Taiwan would be an... interesting campaign.
For the US: The best landing sites with the greatest opportunities for rapid exploitation are on the western side of the island, however landing there would require parking the fleet in the Taiwan Strait, and the Japaneser control both sides of said strait... Not good not good.
For Japan, Taiwan's topography is seemingly ideal for Japan's doctrine of not defending the beaches in favour of an elastic defence in the interior. However, Taiwan isn't some random Pacific island; could the IJA stomach giving up the coastal cities?
Last edited:
It was the USN plan to bypass the Philippine Islands and have Formosa as a gateway to China and choke hold on Japans SLOCs. MacArthur wanted to ego back to the PI.
marathag
Banned
In 1945, Japan didn't control the Sea of Japan. The airpower present in China and Formosa is not enough to keep a Task Force from staying
In 1944, they can try to contest that, that will end up like Samar did for them.
Not really, but here's a news article of note
Yilan County to restore Japan’s WWII-era forts - Taipei Times
Bringing Taiwan to the World and the World to Taiwan
www.taipeitimes.com
Interestingly the article would seem to imply that the Japanese expected a north-easterly strike.
It wasn’t just about destroying the Japanese fleet, it was about keeping as many of your own men alive as possible...
marathag
Banned
Fortifying the West Coast of Formosa was probably very, very low on the list of IJA projects.
Amphibious warfare is literally the hardest, most expensive, and most dangerous type of warfare, and naval invasions can be very costly in terms of lives. There’s a reason why the Allies avoided naval invasions like the plague, even though they do have the capability to do so, often skipping islands.
marathag
Banned
Like Torch, Husky, Shingle and Dragoon?
In the Pacific, you didn't have to take every Atoll with a Japanese flag on it, but would take Island that advanced to goal of getting to Japan.
If King got his way over Dugout Doug, it would have been Formosa
They didn’t take every atoll because they didn’t need to and because naval invasions result in very high casualties
They didn't take every island. When considering which ones to take, they looked at whether it advanced their goals by providing a base of operations for the next attack and whether or not they could accomplish the same goal by taking a less defended island. By sinking the Japanese Navy and merchant fleet and setting up blockades they could effectively turn many of the most heavily fortified islands into self administered POW camps. Perhaps the most famous instance of this is Rabaul.
As I remember, it was passed up due to the number of divisions expected to be needed.
As for casualties, I can't see it being much worse then the Phillipines. This isn't Okinawa, and certainly isn't a home isle.
In fact, the Formosa air groups got flattened in preparation for taking the Philippines.
As the topography goes, the heights and hilly areas would present serious challenges, but not having to make an approximate 10 Billion amphibious landings would be nice for the US.
)
‐------
When all is said and done, it must be remembered that despite all the silly ego and machismo from MacArthur, the Phillipines were American territory, and the Filipinos were getting slaughtered. Cutting short the mass murder of your own damn citizens is practically the top purpose in war. It's not even just a propoganda coup, but a literal moral one
As for casualties, I can't see it being much worse then the Phillipines. This isn't Okinawa, and certainly isn't a home isle.
In fact, the Formosa air groups got flattened in preparation for taking the Philippines.
As the topography goes, the heights and hilly areas would present serious challenges, but not having to make an approximate 10 Billion amphibious landings would be nice for the US.
MacArthur certainly had ego to spare...(did you mean "go back" instead of ego back?
)True enough, but in addition to needing a handful of additional divisions at a time when they were scarce (remember that the US was heavily engaged in both North and South France, Italy, occupying Norh Africa, fighting on a handful of other Pacific locations), landing on Formosa with the Japanese still massed on the Phillipines would have been tricky from a supply and air/sub defense perspective.
‐------
When all is said and done, it must be remembered that despite all the silly ego and machismo from MacArthur, the Phillipines were American territory, and the Filipinos were getting slaughtered. Cutting short the mass murder of your own damn citizens is practically the top purpose in war. It's not even just a propoganda coup, but a literal moral one
No I did mean 'ego'. MacArthur was just a better presenter than King and Nimitz so his plan got the nod.MacArthur certainly had ego to spare...(did you mean "go back" instead of ego back?
The Filipino civilian death-toll would have been much lower if the Formosa operation had gone on instead of MacArthur's plan. However this doesn't bode well for Formosan civilians.