|
Post by Beth on Aug 5, 2017 0:35:23 GMT
Let the conversation begin.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Aug 5, 2017 1:29:27 GMT
In his book, Coral and Brass General Holland M. Smith clearly stated he believed the Tarawa invasion was a terrible mistake and should never had been executed yet Admiral King believed the operation was necessary to defeat Japan.
The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere created by Japan had spread so far into the vast area of the Pacific Ocean and forced Japan to spread its forces so thinly on so many little islands. It was believed by American strategists that the Marianas were the key to defeating the Japanese but the Marshall Islands had to be taken to protect the Marianas and that required Makin in the Gilbert Islands had to provide land based air support but then Tarawa had to be denied as an air base to the Japanese. This is all conjecture on my part.
Tarawa was a very costly learning lesson for the Navy and Marines. Development of better landing craft and discovery that plunging fire was required to destroy concrete pill boxes and defensive positions instead of flat direct fire. These painful lessons were implemented with the Peleliu operation which Admiral Halsey attempted to cancel but was overruled by Admiral Nimitz. Supposedly the invasion was to protect General MacArthur's eastern flank but did Leyte need it?
Should we have bypassed Tarawa and Peleliu like we did Rabaul? I look forward to comments especially by Mac to get an Australian view of these actions that were much closer to his home than mine. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 5, 2017 2:51:31 GMT
I am not going to comment until you take a deep dive into Holland Smith and read "Fleet at High Tide"
Once that is done I will say this. Be very careful trying to second guess Chester Nimitz.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Aug 5, 2017 8:52:34 GMT
While you guys do what you always do and look at the bigger picture, which is ok but not my cup of tea, then I will try and show the battles from eye level and how these places were assaulted and importantly what they faced because the Japanese did their homework and these Atolls no matter how small, where turned into death traps. Somebody mentioned Betio, Dave I think, so I will start with that. I must admit that right from the planning stage the US Intelligence crew got it bang on with the amount of defenders on Betio. They did this by counting the toilets and estimated that this Island was defended by 4.800 personnel, they were almost correct and Betio contained 4.836 Japanese. Out of the 4.836 on the Island, 2.619 were marines from the 7th SNLF plus 1.247 were engineers from the 111th Pioneers and construction battalion containing 970 labourers. The commanders did their homework but blotted their copy book by not listening to what the English, Australian and New Zealand occupants had to say, who had sailed these waters. Because Major General Smith, decided to land his men on the lagoon side of the Island, which was a good idea because this side had the least defences, They said that at this time of year and at this time of day, the water in the lagoon would be five foot deep and this would carry them over the reef that fringed the Island, but they also said that they were being generous with their estimations and this could easily drop by a foot. Because of this Smith wanted to land all of his men in Amtrak’s and not Higgins boats and even though Admiral Turner agreed, only 125 were made available for the assault, which meant that only the main assault would be made in Amtrak’s, with follow up waves and supplies being landed in Higgin’s boats, which turned out to be a disaster, because the water was a foot less than the five foot needed to land the Higgins close to the beach. Red Beach 1 [3/2nd Marine Bn, Co Maj. Schoettel] Red Beach 2 [2/2nd Marine Bn, Co Lt. Col Amey] Red Beach 3 [2/8th Marine Bn, Co Maj. Crowe] Green Beach [1/6th Marine Bn, Maj. Jones] The landings were supported by tanks from 2nd Marine tank Battalion. C Company, 2nd Marine tank Battalion had 15 medium tanks [some reports say 14]. These were; Company HQ: 3 x M4s [1st Lt. Bale] [Some reports say two tanks] 1st Platoon: 4 x M4s 2nd Platoon: 4 x M4s 3rd Platoon: 4 x M4s 1st Platoon was re-enforced with two tanks from the CHQ. They lost three M4s to swamping, apparently they drove into shell craters and sank. The remaining three reached the beach but one stalled due to water damage to the engine, the last two moved inland and one of these was knocked out by a lucky shot from a Japanese Type 95 tank, the round damaged the gun so it had to retire. The last M4 quickly knocked out the Jap tank and managed to support the marines though out the day. 2nd Platoon landed in support on Red Beach 3 in which one sank as it drove of the LCM. The second tank tried to land further up the beach but was almost lost when its LCM took fire, but managed to drive off safely, but soon drove into a shell hole and drown. The remaining two M4s managed to get a shore and take part in the assault on the air strip, but one took heavy fire and rolled into a shell hole, the second was hit by a Japanese soldier armed with an anti-tank mine and finished off with anti-tank gun fire. 3rd Platoon was re-enforced with one tank from the CHQ and managed to land all five tanks on the beach, but as they move ahead two were lost to enemy fire, one [apparently called Colorado by its crew] was set on fire when hit by a Molotov cocktail, the crew managed to drive it back into the sea and beach her, another M4 drove into a ditch and was also set on fire and the remaining tank was lost after it knock out two AT guns and destroyed five pill boxes. B Company, 2nd Marine tank Battalion was equipped with M3 Light tanks and landed at Green Beach. The Japanese had seven Type 95 tanks, all were dug into positions and fought as pill boxes. Here is a map showing what they faced, but unfortunately I could not pin down the amount of defenders located on each of these beaches, but the map does give some indication of what they had. You can see that they made good use of their 13.2mm heavy machine guns, which were similar to the .50 Browning, the 13.2mm was a copy of the French Hotchkiss mle 30 and could wreak havoc against lightly armoured landing craft and Amtrak’s.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Aug 5, 2017 9:08:41 GMT
It’s amazing what you find when you dig around for information, one such question posed was the use of US Marines in the ETO and especially D-Day. Apparently every US Battleship had a detachment of 84 marines and during the D-Day landings, when reports were coming in that the US Rangers were having a tough time of it on “Point Du Hoc”, a decision was made to land a detachment of marines from the USS Texas to re-enforce the rangers, but this order was turned down because the rangers were fearful of the headlines “Marines come to the rescue of Rangers in Normandy”
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Aug 5, 2017 14:30:47 GMT
C Company, 2nd Marine tank Battalion had 15 medium tanks [some reports say 14]. These were; Company HQ: 3 x M4s [1st Lt. Bale] [Some reports say two tanks] 1st Platoon: 4 x M4s 2nd Platoon: 4 x M4s 3rd Platoon: 4 x M4s
Hmmm...I am skeptical about that data because 14 M4s was standard for a marine medium tank company, but I have cross checked these totals with two sites and they all say that two HQ tanks were with 1st platoon and one was with 3rd platoon, 2nd platoon had their normal four. I hate doubting my own posts, especially if it took an age to gather the info, but something is out here and it is the amount of HQ vehicles.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Aug 5, 2017 15:17:58 GMT
I have read Fleet at High Tide, With the Old Breed: At Peleliu and Okinawa, Earned in Blood: My Journey from Old-Breed Marine to the Most Dangerous Job in America, Marine! and other books dealing with the naval and amphibious operations in the Pacific in WW II. All of this accumulated knowledge has enabled me to realize I don't know squat! I did not criticize Nimitz in my post but accurately said that Halsey did not want to assault Peleliu but was ordered to do so by Nimitz. The US would have been hard pressed to defeat the Japanese without Nimitz and his strategic planning and people skills. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 5, 2017 15:56:22 GMT
Did not say you criticized Nimitz Dave. I said be very careful trying to second guess him.
He was the man in command. If Chester Nimitz thought Tarawa and Peleliu were necessary missions to undertake then that is good enough for me. Obviously he was aware of the costs involved, and Nimitz did not take that lightly. That alone, what I know of Nimitz the man, leads me to believe that he made the right call.
I have no use whatsoever for Smith, for a number of reasons, and I would not trust Halsey to make any theater level operational decision, without the blessing of Nimitz. Neither Smith nor Halsey were to be trusted.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 5, 2017 16:22:32 GMT
Ian as far as tank companies go there were three involved in the Tarawa operation.
The one you are probably talking about is Company C, 1st Corps Tank Battalion. The organization for this company was three 4 tank platoons and a 2 tank headquarters tank section. This unit was equipped with the M4A2 Medium Tank. The unit is not to be confused with the 1st Marine Tank Battalion. They were separate units. The 1st CTB was assigned to the Marine Amphibious Corps, and was meant to reinforce assaulting divisions with medium tanks. The divisional tank battalions still were equipped with lights at the time.
As to the other Marine tank battalions I believe, but have not verified that the had three 5 tank platoons and a 2 tank headquarters tank section. I recall reading that all the Marines did when they organized their first two tank battalions is adopt Army tables of organization.
The three landing/combat teams at Tarawa were
2nd Marines (Reinforced) supported by Company C, 1st Corps Tank Battalion (M4A2) 6th Marines (Reinforced, minus 2nd Battalion) supported by Company B, 2nd Marine Tank Battalion (M3A1) 8th Marines (Reinforced, minus 2nd Battalion) supported by Company C , 2nd Marine Tank Battalion (M3A1)
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Aug 5, 2017 16:35:40 GMT
Chuck, as I wrote in my long winded but interesting post above, that B Company, 2nd Marine tank Battalion was equipped with M3 Light tanks and landed at Green Beach.
I have seen a photo of one of these M3 Stuarts lying dead in the water so the unit must have been engaged as it approached the beach. I will check later but I don't know if the Light tanks were grouped in threes or not, as marine tank units are pretty new to me.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 5, 2017 16:57:36 GMT
And Company B, 2nd Tanks was equipped with with M3's.
The initial landings were conducted by the 2nd Marines and they had Company C, 1st CTB as their armored element.
6th Marines with Company B, 2nd Tanks did not land until shortly after noon on D Day.
Your initial post indicated that the landings were supported only by the 2nd Marine Tank Battalion. That was not true. There were supported by three tank companies from two different battalions.
C/1st CTB (M4's) B/2nd MTB (M3's) C/2nd MTB (M3's)
All of this data I am posting is from the Marine Order of Battle of WWII, which breaks down in great detail the forces involved in each of the Marines WWII operations
The Headquarters and Service Company of the 2nd Marine Tank Battalion was also present at Tarawa, but did not land until the fighting was nearly over. Company D (Scout), 2nd Marine Tank Battalion was securing one of the outlying atolls and not on Tarawa.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Aug 5, 2017 16:59:38 GMT
QC Did not mean to sound offended and if so I apologize. I liked Smith a whole lot more than General Rupertus who allowed the 1st Marine Division, especially the 1st Marines with over 70% casualties, to lose nearly 1/3 of their total strength. In fact the Marines lost more men on Peleliu than any other operation including Iwo Jima.
I would be interested in your thoughts regarding Smith if you so feel inclined. We might as well discuss General Puller as well as he is highly loved and disliked by many. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 5, 2017 17:23:53 GMT
Disregarding Eugene Sledge, tell me how Rupertus could have done it better? Tell me how Puller could have done it better on Peleliu as well. The Japanese had a vote, just like the Indians had a vote at the Reno breakout.
Reading at low levels like Sledge, must be complimented by reading at battalion, regimental, division, and higher levels, to include theater, to get an accurate overall perspective. If I had been a rifleman at Peleliu I would have hated Puller's and Rupertus' guts, and damned them to hell every day of my remaining life. My feeling that way at the rifleman level though does not mean they were doing a bad job at their levels.
Tarawa and Peleliu were two tough nuts to crack. The Japanese were well dug in in both places. Unlike Guadalcanal there was no two sided war of maneuver. When you go up against heavily fortified positions, that must be taken, you will expend much in the way of combat power doing it. Fifty, sixty, or seventy percent casualties are unfortunate, but not that unusual in such situations. What makes Peleliu and Tarawa any different from the attacks launched against Cemetery Ridge on 2 and 3 July 1863? None that I can see, expect the Japanese were in a far better defensive posture than the Army of the Potomac. I am sure those attacks did not produce any Lee, Longstreet, Pickett, and Hood fans either.
Smith was too senior for a divisional command, and demonstrated that he did not have the temperment to command joint forces. That is why he was not given command at Okinawa. He could not be trusted outside the confines of the Marine Corps.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Aug 6, 2017 10:19:58 GMT
I know about all of those formations Chuck, I was reading up on Tarawa and Betio Friday and All Saturday, but seeing that the story of Charlie Company was the most interesting, I wrote about it, plus as you know Lieutenant Bale’s Company C was the only unit equipped with medium tanks and the only medium tank unit available to the 2nd Marines. His company was scheduled to land with the fourth wave.
Captain Stewart and B Company [2nd Marine Tank Battalion] was ordered to land on Green Beach along with the 1/6 Marines, but the tanks of 3rd Platoon were landed 700 yards from the beach, which resulted in only two out of the five, reaching dry ground. Stewart asked for the remainder of his Company to land on Red Beach 2.
C Company [2nd Marine Tank Battalion] landed on Red Beach, and one their Platoons had already lost two M3s when their boats were sunk, another drowned in a shell hole driving up to the beach, which left only two runners and these dug in near the pier and were subjected to mortar fire. The rest of the Company came ashore in dribs and drabs and lost more tanks to drowning.
The Marines soon found out that M3 with its 37mm gun was inadequate against Japanese pill boxes and block houses, which was why they attached Companies of M4s to give the Marines some extra punch.
Funny enough, Lieutenant Ed Bale [C/1st CTB] more than 60 years after the events, “There was no liaison, no training with the infantry, no training with the artillery or anything, We were attached to the 2nd Marines, but the only contact I ever had with them was a briefing in a conference room aboard one of the APAs.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Aug 6, 2017 11:16:27 GMT
I suppose that in the main Tarawa was chosen because of its airfield, which was unique because the Gilberts had little in the way of room to hold an airbase, but having said that, the air strip on Tarawa [Hawkins Field] was just a tad too small for B-24 bombers and was mainly used for naval fighters and as an emergency landing strip for damaged bombers returning from missions.
But I know that any Island having either an airbase or naval base [or both in some cases] is considered a threat, but was it worth virtually destroying one of your best formations in the taking?
The JNAF withdrew all aircraft before the American attack, but prior to that the base was the home of eighteen Betty light bombers [Japanese air group 755 Kōkūtai] which mainly flew maritime patrols which spotted the Marine fleet when it was 100 miles away from its objective and even launched attacks against the US base of Nanumea which contained B-24 bombers. Aircraft from this group also launched an attack on the carrier force on the 19th November.
So was this place a threat? it certainly had teeth when armed with a group of bombers, but when these withdrew the place was toothless, but I suppose an enemy base to your rear is always going to be some kind of threat.
|
|