Fascinating content. Thanks for the great work. I was a USMC radar repair tech in the 80s and this history amazing. I never knew there were that many islands in the island hopping campaigns. We know of the big ones, but never imagine so many. Where can I get a copy of this map? 00:48
@@jean-francoislemieux5509 Depending on if you want to use it privately or publicly. If you want to use it publicly I would check with the channel host if it is avaiable for free.
Great work! I'd argue that, while Iwo may not have delivered all of the benefits advertised by some, both given the info known at the time, and the later reality, taking it was a net gain for the allied cause. I "what if" Chichi Jima sometimes, but Iwo had the better airfields. Also, my Chichi Jima question is more based on hindsight (fewer Japanese troops and fortifications) than the allies knowledge at the time. The biggest "what if" to me is what if the war had continued past August 1945. In that case, Iwo looks extremely valuable.
Who's watching these videos and thinking "this guy isn t doing appropriate research or drawing valid conclusions ". You'll never make everyone happy I suppose. Thanks for the content. And bring on the Liberators!
This video does raise some interesting thoughts, but Iwo Jima found itself as the next “layer of onion” that was going to need peeling to get to mainland Japan anyway. Looked at another way - it would have seemed strange if it had been bypassed.
Something tells me High Command already knew there were multiple layers of early warning posts and that eliminating Iwo's radar wasn't their motivation for taking the island. Considering how quickly the Seabees started expanding the airstrips upon the island's capture tells me they wanted it for fighter escort staging and emergency landing for B29's. In any event, wouldn't the reasons for taking the island be spelled out in the Pentagon's Orders directing the island's capture?
Iwo had nothing to do with the early warning system of the Japanese as a reason to capture the Island. It allowed the stationing of fighter escort aircraft for the B-29s and refuge for them on their way back to home base. You might include being able to station S&R on Iwo to assist in saving lives at sea.
People just don’t want to think that all the sacrifice on Iwo Jima was for naught. However all that is hindsight. Every casualty and defeat can be second guessed. Every weapons program could have been second guessed - US spent a lot in WWII on weapons systems that were poor, and had good systems that didn’t make it to the fight in time.
Before the allied capture of Iwo Jima, was there any Allied concern that the Japanese might use the airbases there to attack B-29s or imperil the supply lines of the planned invasion of the home islands? In hindsight we know it's unlikely that the Japanese could have done so, but in the fog of war in 1945, was anyone on the Allied worried about that possibility?
If the US decided to bypass that island I'm sure the airfields would've been bombed and shelled faster than the Japanese could repair them, plus getting replacement construction materials and aircraft would quickly have become nearly impossible... Just a battleship parked outside the range of their remaining deeply dug in artillery and occasional overflights and bombing runs probably would've made a bypass or atleast removing the threat of it being a Japanese airfield possible... But that's just my opinion... I can easily see both sides as to why and why not Iwo Jima would've made the list, although it's definitely easier to say "obviously bypass" now knowing the outcome and actual fortifications and troop strengths of this and other Japanese held islands... Our historical hindsight is always 20/20 😉👍
Looking at the attack route Marianas to Tokyo - the path is overhead that long chain of radar equipped islands - so ample warning for Tokyo attacks. The real question is did the US military know of this chain at the time of the Iwo invasion, and if they did why not fly a route east or west of that radar chain so they were undetected until mainland radars detected them.
Iwo Jima was part of Japan proper and not an overseas colony like the Marshall Islands. The island was under the jurisdiction of the Tokyo prefecture and formed part of a chain of islands leading to the capital.
Another great piece of analysis. Based on all information from after the war it may be possible to say that the loss of Iwo had minimal effect on early warning for Japan. However in any campaign you go with what you know and in many cases guess as to what the enemy is doing. So the rationale to take Iwo made sense. Although as with many battles the cost was underestimated. But look at D-Day, we thu0hgt it would be worse. In hindsight would we have bombed Monte Cassino or would the Dambuster raid have occurred. Great analysis where do you find all this info.
Just having a couple of picket boats available to report in, would have given the Japanese military plenty of notice. Remember how the Doolittle raid had to launch prematurely, due to a single picket boat reporting them in.
It's funny how something like a cheap small picket boat could have potentially jeopardized the Doolittle operation into disaster but very true. Japan had many of those little boats littering the approach to the home islands.
I agree with your assessment of the Japanese not losing much radar coverage after Iwo Jima was invaded. However, as to your earlier video, is there any information as to why so many B29s refueled when they had more than enough fuel to make it back to base? The why would be important in determining how many crews and bombers were saved because Iwo Jima was held by the Americans. It seems there must have been a good reason, or the pilots would have gotten into trouble with their superiors.
I believe the fuel question was answered in his previous video entitled, "Exploring B-29 Bombers saved by the capture of Iwo Jima". Not too sure though.
@@NickyDusse Actually, he did not explain why so many bombers landed to refuel, when they had plenty of fuel to make it back to their base. I still lean toward the idea that the pilot/and or crew, were worn out to the point that they were a danger to themselves if they didn't take a break.
@@williamromine5715 ahh shoot must've misremembered, I think it was a comment then(?) where a supposed pilot was explaining how even if you know you technically have enough fuel to get home, if it's even kind of close, or if you have the option to receive more fuel one should always take it. Perhaps the B-29 pilots were following a similar school of thought.
@@NickyDusse I think you are on to something. If your fuel is at all questionable you are unlikely to pass up an opportunity to obtain more fuel and increase your safety factor. Even if the odds are that you will probably make it all the way back to Tinian, but something unexpected causes you to ditch just a few miles short, your leadership will be asking why you were in such a hurry to get home that you didn't stop for some extra fuel. Losing an expensive airplane and risking your crew over the inconvenience of delaying for more gas could result in a charge of negligence. When I flew over oceans or remote territories I always planned my fuel with a fat pencil, and being on or ahead of the fuel consumption plan was always more comfortable.
Please discuss the decision to remove armament during firebombing raids and is there any photo evidence of turrets being removed from either the 58th 73rd 313th or 314th BW B-29s
I had read thay actually (even though countless sources always speak of 'armament removed'), it just was a matter of not carrying ammos during night raids... and not even in each instance. Reducing the full load of 7,600 rounds to a few hundreds (only for the tail position) plus removing at least three gunners, and nothing more. According to what I've read, armament actually wasn't removed. In fact, many times in that springtime - early summer 1945 those same B-29s still found themselves flying many daylight missions as well, and reports of fierce battle against Japanese fighters kept coming regularly, with all gunners being busy at their respective stations.
The armaments weren't removed in the field, the B29's that were used for the low level high speed fire bombing raids were purpose built B29B's that were built by Bell at their Marietta Georgia plant.
The turrets were not removed, the guns were removed. The guns were removed from 8th Air Force bombers after every mission and cleaned, checked, and got new barrels if needed. I don't expect it was any different in the 21st Air Force. Maybe they were not removed if they hadn't been fired. But removing guns for maintenance is a common practice, so you probably don't even have to remove them for a night mission, you just don't install them for that mission.
If indeed the Japanese continue to have at least an hours warning prior to raids after Iwo Jima fell, then the effect was not substantial. Unless the Japanese were launching interceptors to attack well before they crossed the coast, which they did not.
Peleliu is another obvious place we should have left well enough alone, and another place where US casualties and material losses far outweighed any possible strategic gain -- something like the Hurtgen Forest, except with malaria.
I feel like this series about the value of Iwo Jima ignores the role that the island could have played if the war had continued through the planned invasion of the Japanese home islands. If I recall my history, the US really didn't have the ability to continue nuking many more cities. If Japan hadn't surrendered history would have been a lot darker in late 1945. I enjoy your analysis in all of these videos. I'm curious if the prospect of a prolonged war would change your analysis of the value of Iwo Jima?
I'm surprised this being a question: ChiChiJima [sp] was always a thorn in the side of the USAAF. In fact it was their radar facilities that George H.W. Bush was bombing when he was shot down. BTW those radar were never knocked out. ref: Flyboys, James Bradley 2006.
That's a good question, as anything with a Japanese flag was game for the US Navy and USAAF. Submarines saved torpedoes just by using their deck guns destroying scores of smaller boats on the approach to the home islands.
Simple, concise, and convincing. Thank you. Seems that even without Iwo Jima Japan still had better early warning than Britain had in 1940. Edit: Seems that even without Iwo Jima, Japan could detect incoming raids further from its coastline than Britain could in 1940.
The RAF had tea while the Radar watched the Germans form up. Proximity gave them an advantage they should not have had. If the Germans had Heavy Bombers taking off from Germany, the British may have had the lesser system of the two, but also four years earlier needs to be put into the equation. The Japanese did not seem very interested in electronics in the 40's only building one of the German radars.
But it was prudent to take them and to seize the airfields for ourselves, it has repeatedly been demonstrated that underestimating the capabilities of the enemy may bite your ass, quite a few b29 aircrew were saved by being able to land on it as well
Sure sounds like losing Iwo Jima made no practical difference. Even if they did get a couple of hours extra warning, it was too far away to even hint at the exact target.
It was too far away to provide Target info, just that a flight was on the way. They knew they were coming, just where were they going to bomb so they could get the fighters in place. (Anything of "clockwork" rituals where the Americans launched at 6:30AM every day no matter what or did they randomize the times). I'm surprised they had to tell these guys to get on the guns 1/2 hour before land fall. I'd be in my position as soon as it was safe to be after takeoff, you never know who might decide to gamble. A Zero could make it to anywhere a B29 was taking off from to hit Japan. I know they hit Tinian a few times destroying a few planes on the ground. (While looking up the spelling I got the answer to where the Atomic Bombs took off from, Tinian, I was thinking Iwo might be a little rough while thinking of another good reason to take it at such a high cost. But if it went off on takeoff Iwo would be a better place to have "that accident" happen).
Iwo Jima had been a sulphur mine for many years and Mt Suribachi was a labyrinth of tunnels and galleries like a hornets nest .. We should have captured it before going on to the Philippines… even 6 months would have made the invasion less costly..but the real reason for the capture of the airfield was as a divert field for the nuclear equipped B-29’s … nukes are expensive
I don’t think it is any shame to say that taking Iwo Jima was in-hindsight not worth the price paid. Many battles are fought for reasons which defy explanation, Gettysburg started over shoes. Just in the Pacific campaign there were many conflicts which even at the time seemed unnecessary to the main thrust. Retaking the Philippines, a massive endeavor, wasn’t essential to the fight against Japan in the Navy’s view at the time. But between MacArthur, the Navy, and Roosevelt they picked battles the best they could.
No need to take Iwo Jima. It us true taking it saved some air crews. How would those lives be valued versus lives of the army and Marines lost in taking the island? I think a case can't be made taking the island was a net gain
Without modern anti-radar guided missiles, permanently knocking out radars from the air is rather difficult. Neither the Germans attacks on British radars nor Allied attacks on German radars were very effective.
@@jeffbangle4710 I guess it really depends on the size of the radar and the weapons involved. We know that the US used a radar guided bomb during WWII in the Pacific theatre, so why wouldn't they be able to make a radar homing bomb?
I love your no-nonsense videos man; great job!
Fascinating content. Thanks for the great work. I was a USMC radar repair tech in the 80s and this history amazing. I never knew there were that many islands in the island hopping campaigns. We know of the big ones, but never imagine so many. Where can I get a copy of this map? 00:48
its in hd. quite readable even in full screen. i would suggest you take a screen shot
@@jean-francoislemieux5509 Depending on if you want to use it privately or publicly.
If you want to use it publicly I would check with the channel host if it is avaiable for free.
I found a copy somewhere and can email it to you if you want
@@rags417 that would be great! Thanks!
Great video! I love this channel. This and Greg’s Airplanes are my favorite plane channels
Great work! I'd argue that, while Iwo may not have delivered all of the benefits advertised by some, both given the info known at the time, and the later reality, taking it was a net gain for the allied cause. I "what if" Chichi Jima sometimes, but Iwo had the better airfields. Also, my Chichi Jima question is more based on hindsight (fewer Japanese troops and fortifications) than the allies knowledge at the time. The biggest "what if" to me is what if the war had continued past August 1945. In that case, Iwo looks extremely valuable.
Excellent research!
Keep up the good work! Great stuff.
Who's watching these videos and thinking "this guy isn t doing appropriate research or drawing valid conclusions ". You'll never make everyone happy I suppose. Thanks for the content. And bring on the Liberators!
This video does raise some interesting thoughts, but Iwo Jima found itself as the next “layer of onion” that was going to need peeling to get to mainland Japan anyway. Looked at another way - it would have seemed strange if it had been bypassed.
Something tells me High Command already knew there were multiple layers of early warning posts and that eliminating Iwo's radar wasn't their motivation for taking the island. Considering how quickly the Seabees started expanding the airstrips upon the island's capture tells me they wanted it for fighter escort staging and emergency landing for B29's. In any event, wouldn't the reasons for taking the island be spelled out in the Pentagon's Orders directing the island's capture?
Thanks for another great video. On point, as always!
On the first look, this is well researched and well argued. I have just joined your channel and I'm happy to have so done. Thank you!
excellent presentation. thank you.
Iwo had nothing to do with the early warning system of the Japanese as a reason to capture the Island. It allowed the stationing of fighter escort aircraft for the B-29s and refuge for them on their way back to home base. You might include being able to station S&R on Iwo to assist in saving lives at sea.
You must have watched any of the recent videos on this channel right?
People just don’t want to think that all the sacrifice on Iwo Jima was for naught. However all that is hindsight. Every casualty and defeat can be second guessed. Every weapons program could have been second guessed - US spent a lot in WWII on weapons systems that were poor, and had good systems that didn’t make it to the fight in time.
great content, thanks
Before the allied capture of Iwo Jima, was there any Allied concern that the Japanese might use the airbases there to attack B-29s or imperil the supply lines of the planned invasion of the home islands? In hindsight we know it's unlikely that the Japanese could have done so, but in the fog of war in 1945, was anyone on the Allied worried about that possibility?
If the US decided to bypass that island I'm sure the airfields would've been bombed and shelled faster than the Japanese could repair them, plus getting replacement construction materials and aircraft would quickly have become nearly impossible... Just a battleship parked outside the range of their remaining deeply dug in artillery and occasional overflights and bombing runs probably would've made a bypass or atleast removing the threat of it being a Japanese airfield possible... But that's just my opinion... I can easily see both sides as to why and why not Iwo Jima would've made the list, although it's definitely easier to say "obviously bypass" now knowing the outcome and actual fortifications and troop strengths of this and other Japanese held islands... Our historical hindsight is always 20/20 😉👍
Great analysis!
Excellent reposte, the evidence supports your Iwo Jima video upload.
Looking at the attack route Marianas to Tokyo - the path is overhead that long chain of radar equipped islands - so ample warning for Tokyo attacks. The real question is did the US military know of this chain at the time of the Iwo invasion, and if they did why not fly a route east or west of that radar chain so they were undetected until mainland radars detected them.
Where can I get the map of the island hopping campaign as shown at 00:41?
Look in the video description section for a download link to the charts. Hope that helps.
Iwo Jima was part of Japan proper and not an overseas colony like the Marshall Islands. The island was under the jurisdiction of the Tokyo prefecture and formed part of a chain of islands leading to the capital.
nice job
Well done.
Thanks.
I find your conclusions very convincing. I wish all historians were as thorough in their research and sourcing.
Another great piece of analysis. Based on all information from after the war it may be possible to say that the loss of Iwo had minimal effect on early warning for Japan. However in any campaign you go with what you know and in many cases guess as to what the enemy is doing. So the rationale to take Iwo made sense. Although as with many battles the cost was underestimated. But look at D-Day, we thu0hgt it would be worse. In hindsight would we have bombed Monte Cassino or would the Dambuster raid have occurred. Great analysis where do you find all this info.
Just having a couple of picket boats available to report in, would have given the Japanese military plenty of notice. Remember how the Doolittle raid had to launch prematurely, due to a single picket boat reporting them in.
It's funny how something like a cheap small picket boat could have potentially jeopardized the Doolittle operation into disaster but very true. Japan had many of those little boats littering the approach to the home islands.
I agree with your assessment of the Japanese not losing much radar coverage after Iwo Jima was invaded. However, as to your earlier video, is there any information as to why so many B29s refueled when they had more than enough fuel to make it back to base? The why would be important in determining how many crews and bombers were saved because Iwo Jima was held by the Americans. It seems there must have been a good reason, or the pilots would have gotten into trouble with their superiors.
I believe the fuel question was answered in his previous video entitled, "Exploring B-29 Bombers saved by the capture of Iwo Jima". Not too sure though.
@@NickyDusse Actually, he did not explain why so many bombers landed to refuel, when they had plenty of fuel to make it back to their base. I still lean toward the idea that the pilot/and or crew, were worn out to the point that they were a danger to themselves if they didn't take a break.
@@williamromine5715 ahh shoot must've misremembered, I think it was a comment then(?) where a supposed pilot was explaining how even if you know you technically have enough fuel to get home, if it's even kind of close, or if you have the option to receive more fuel one should always take it. Perhaps the B-29 pilots were following a similar school of thought.
@@NickyDusse I think you are on to something. If your fuel is at all questionable you are unlikely to pass up an opportunity to obtain more fuel and increase your safety factor. Even if the odds are that you will probably make it all the way back to Tinian, but something unexpected causes you to ditch just a few miles short, your leadership will be asking why you were in such a hurry to get home that you didn't stop for some extra fuel. Losing an expensive airplane and risking your crew over the inconvenience of delaying for more gas could result in a charge of negligence. When I flew over oceans or remote territories I always planned my fuel with a fat pencil, and being on or ahead of the fuel consumption plan was always more comfortable.
@@NickyDusse That could be it. I wonder if they spent the night there to rest up and wind down before preceding back to base?
A Url to the ''Island hopping sequence map'' (0:40) would be HIGHLY appreciated! :-] hYlkeW
Remarkable how often textbooks chose a map scale that supports their conclusions by leaving out the smaller islands.
that chronological island hopping map is great. what source did that come from, if you don't mind sharing?
Please discuss the decision to remove armament during firebombing raids and is there any photo evidence of turrets being removed from either the 58th 73rd 313th or 314th BW B-29s
I had read thay actually (even though countless sources always speak of 'armament removed'), it just was a matter of not carrying ammos during night raids... and not even in each instance. Reducing the full load of 7,600 rounds to a few hundreds (only for the tail position) plus removing at least three gunners, and nothing more. According to what I've read, armament actually wasn't removed.
In fact, many times in that springtime - early summer 1945 those same B-29s still found themselves flying many daylight missions as well, and reports of fierce battle against Japanese fighters kept coming regularly, with all gunners being busy at their respective stations.
The armaments weren't removed in the field, the B29's that were used for the low level high speed fire bombing raids were purpose built B29B's that were built by Bell at their Marietta Georgia plant.
@@dukecraig2402 Ok thank you for the explanations, the way the order was worded made it sound like the whole turrets were removed.
The turrets were not removed, the guns were removed. The guns were removed from 8th Air Force bombers after every mission and cleaned, checked, and got new barrels if needed. I don't expect it was any different in the 21st Air Force. Maybe they were not removed if they hadn't been fired. But removing guns for maintenance is a common practice, so you probably don't even have to remove them for a night mission, you just don't install them for that mission.
If indeed the Japanese continue to have at least an hours warning prior to raids after Iwo Jima fell, then the effect was not substantial. Unless the Japanese were launching interceptors to attack well before they crossed the coast, which they did not.
Peleliu is another obvious place we should have left well enough alone, and another place where US casualties and material losses far outweighed any possible strategic gain -- something like the Hurtgen Forest, except with malaria.
I feel like this series about the value of Iwo Jima ignores the role that the island could have played if the war had continued through the planned invasion of the Japanese home islands. If I recall my history, the US really didn't have the ability to continue nuking many more cities. If Japan hadn't surrendered history would have been a lot darker in late 1945.
I enjoy your analysis in all of these videos. I'm curious if the prospect of a prolonged war would change your analysis of the value of Iwo Jima?
I agree.
I'm surprised this being a question: ChiChiJima [sp] was always a thorn in the side of the USAAF. In fact it was their radar facilities that George H.W. Bush was bombing when he was shot down. BTW those radar were never knocked out. ref: Flyboys, James Bradley 2006.
Did the usaaf or navy ever go out to specifically hunt the picket boats?
That's a good question, as anything with a Japanese flag was game for the US Navy and USAAF. Submarines saved torpedoes just by using their deck guns destroying scores of smaller boats on the approach to the home islands.
Simple, concise, and convincing. Thank you.
Seems that even without Iwo Jima Japan still had better early warning than Britain had in 1940.
Edit: Seems that even without Iwo Jima, Japan could detect incoming raids further from its coastline than Britain could in 1940.
The RAF had tea while the Radar watched the Germans form up. Proximity gave them an advantage they should not have had.
If the Germans had Heavy Bombers taking off from Germany, the British may have had the lesser system of the two, but also four years earlier needs to be put into the equation. The Japanese did not seem very interested in electronics in the 40's only building one of the German radars.
@WWIIUSBombers >>> 👍👍
I agree that losing Iwo as an early warning radar station was insignificant.
But it was prudent to take them and to seize the airfields for ourselves, it has repeatedly been demonstrated that underestimating the capabilities of the enemy may bite your ass, quite a few b29 aircrew were saved by being able to land on it as well
Sure sounds like losing Iwo Jima made no practical difference. Even if they did get a couple of hours extra warning, it was too far away to even hint at the exact target.
It was too far away to provide Target info, just that a flight was on the way. They knew they were coming, just where were they going to bomb so they could get the fighters in place. (Anything of "clockwork" rituals where the Americans launched at 6:30AM every day no matter what or did they randomize the times).
I'm surprised they had to tell these guys to get on the guns 1/2 hour before land fall. I'd be in my position as soon as it was safe to be after takeoff, you never know who might decide to gamble. A Zero could make it to anywhere a B29 was taking off from to hit Japan. I know they hit Tinian a few times destroying a few planes on the ground.
(While looking up the spelling I got the answer to where the Atomic Bombs took off from, Tinian, I was thinking Iwo might be a little rough while thinking of another good reason to take it at such a high cost. But if it went off on takeoff Iwo would be a better place to have "that accident" happen).
It was impossible for the bombs to detonate during take off, they were disassembled enough that it wasn't possible.
Iwo Jima had been a sulphur mine for many years and Mt Suribachi was a labyrinth of tunnels and galleries like a hornets nest .. We should have captured it before going on to the Philippines… even 6 months would have made the invasion less costly..but the real reason for the capture of the airfield was as a divert field for the nuclear equipped B-29’s … nukes are expensive
I doubt it; Iwo Jima was invaded before the first nuclear test, Trinity on July 16, 1945,
It allowed P51s to escort B29s.
I don’t think it is any shame to say that taking Iwo Jima was in-hindsight not worth the price paid. Many battles are fought for reasons which defy explanation, Gettysburg started over shoes.
Just in the Pacific campaign there were many conflicts which even at the time seemed unnecessary to the main thrust. Retaking the Philippines, a massive endeavor, wasn’t essential to the fight against Japan in the Navy’s view at the time. But between MacArthur, the Navy, and Roosevelt they picked battles the best they could.
Iwo looks like a good jumping off point for aircraft supporting the forthcoming invasion of Japan.
No need to take Iwo Jima. It us true taking it saved some air crews. How would those lives be valued versus lives of the army and Marines lost in taking the island? I think a case can't be made taking the island was a net gain
easy to destroy radar without invading as well.
Without modern anti-radar guided missiles, permanently knocking out radars from the air is rather difficult. Neither the Germans attacks on British radars nor Allied attacks on German radars were very effective.
@@jeffbangle4710 I guess it really depends on the size of the radar and the weapons involved. We know that the US used a radar guided bomb during WWII in the Pacific theatre, so why wouldn't they be able to make a radar homing bomb?
Algorithm
Fascinating stuff.
Yes...clearly, taking Iwo Jima was a BAD idea.
☮
Love this channel...For everyone asking about the island hopping map
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_landings.jpg
Regardless of radar the japs were ineffective in destroying b29s to be a concern to lemay