PDA

View Full Version : Okinawa: The Last Landing



hist2004
07-01-2005, 09:27 PM
Okinawa: The Last Landing

The American invasion of Okinawa was the largest amphibious assault of World War II. It was also the last.

By Eric Hammel

When two United States Marine and two Army divisions landed abreast on Okinawa on Easter Sunday, April 1, 1945, they faced an estimated 155,000 Japanese ground, air and naval troops holding an immense island on which an estimated 500,000 civilians lived in cities, towns and villages. Operation Iceberg was to be, in every way, vast when compared to any other operation undertaken by Allied forces in the Pacific War under U.S. Navy command. Indeed, using mainly divisions that had already undertaken island-hopping operations in the South and Central Pacific since mid-1942, the U.S. Pacific Fleet stood up the Tenth U.S. Army under Lieutenant General Simon Bolivar Buckner Jr., consisting of III Amphibious Corps and XXIV Army Corps -- the largest land command ever assembled under the Navy's direct control.

To those Japanese who thought the war was winnable, Okinawa was the last chance. The island lay within 350 miles -- easy flight distance -- from the Japanese homeland and was, by American design, to be the base from which the southernmost Home Island, Kyushu, would be pummeled to dust ahead of the expected follow-on invasion. Anything short of complete victory over Allied air, naval and ground forces spelled doom for Japan -- and no such victory was remotely in the cards. Thus, from the Japanese view Okinawa was and could be no more than a delaying battle of attrition on a grand scale. The few Japanese who knew that their country's war effort was in extremis were content to fight on Okinawa simply for reasons of honor, for all military logic pointed to the same dismal conclusion: Japan was vanquished in all but name as soon as the first Boeing B-29s left the ground in the Marianas, as soon as American carrier aircraft hit targets in Japan at will, as soon as even twin-engine bombers could strike Japanese ports from Iwo Jima, as soon as Japan dared not move a warship or cargo vessel from a port in any part of the shrinking empire for fear it would be sunk by an Allied submarine. By April 1, 1945, all those events were taking place routinely.

Although the Japanese commanders counted 155,000 defenders, of whom 100,000 were soldiers of Lt. Gen. Mitsuru Ushijima's Thirty-second Army, the rest were of widely mixed abilities, and there were not nearly enough troops to cover the ground the way 23,000 troops had covered Iwo Jima. Therefore the forces on Okinawa were concentrated in a number of sectors that offered the best prospects for a robust, attritional defense. The northern half of the island was virtually conceded, and the south was turned into four extremely tough hedgehog defense sectors. The proportion of artillery and mortars to infantry was the highest encountered in the Pacific War.

Coming to put their defense arrangement to the test was the Tenth Army. The new 6th Marine Division (1st Provisional Marine Brigade plus the 29th Marines and attachments) would land over the northernmost beaches on the western side of Okinawa a little south of the island's midpoint. It was to strike across the island, then turn north to pacify a little more than half of Okinawa on its own. To the right, the 1st Marine Division was also to strike across the island, then become part of the Tenth Army reserve. The Army's 7th and 96th Infantry divisions were to land side by side in the southern half of the Tenth Army beachhead and pivot south to cover the width of the island. Also on April 1, the III Amphibious Corps' (IIIAC) reserve, the 2nd Marine Division, made a feint toward a set of beaches in southeastern Okinawa. This feint was in line with where the Japanese predicted the main landing would take place, so for once a feint actually held large numbers of defenders in place looking the wrong way. Other units, including the Fleet Marine Force's Pacific Reconnaissance Battalion, were assigned objectives elsewhere in the Ryukyu Islands, most of which were taken or at least assaulted before what was dubbed L-day on Okinawa.

Immediate objectives were Yontan and Kadena airfields, in the IIIAC and XXIV Corps zones, respectively. As soon as these airfields could be brought to operational status, combat-support aircraft would operate from them. Also, many aircraft carriers would remain on station off Okinawa for as long as their air groups were needed. The land-based component was a Marine command named the Tactical Air Force and consisting of several Marine air groups of fighters and light bombers. Marine fighter squadrons based aboard fleet carriers and several new Marine carrier air groups (fighters and torpedo bombers) based aboard escort carriers would be available throughout the land operation.

The landings were made against zero opposition and with almost no casualties. Far from going into a state of optimism, however, the many veterans in the assault force realized that a very hard road lay before them, that the Japanese had chosen to dig deep and fight on their own terms.

Yontan Airfield fell by midmorning, after Marines overcame very light opposition along the juncture of the 1st and 6th Marine divisions. Reinforcements moved to fill gaps that developed due to rapid advances by the 4th, 7th and 22nd Marines. Marines of the 1st Division captured an intact bridge across a stream at the IIIAC–XXIV Corps boundary and overcame hastily built field fortifications all across the division front. Divisional and IIIAC artillery battalions landed routinely, and many batteries were providing fire by 1530 hours. The IIIAC advance halted between 1600 and 1700 to avoid more gaps and to help the Marines on the far right maintain contact with the 7th Infantry Division, whose left flank outpaced the 1st Marine Division right-flank unit by several hundred yards. The halt also gave artillery units outpaced by the rapid advance time to move forward and register night defensive fires.

Basically, all of L-day's headaches arose from the light-to-nonexistent defensive effort, and not the usual spate of battle problems. Both airfields, Kadena and Yontan, were firmly in American hands by nightfall, and engineers were already at work to get them operational in the shortest possible time.

While by no means a romp, the days that followed on L-day were nearly bloodless. Enemy troops were encountered here and there as the two Marine divisions swallowed up miles of territory against, at most, desultory opposition. Captives proved to be second- and third-rate troops, mostly technicians and other noncombatants drafted into ad hoc defensive units, lightly armed and miserably trained. Also, many thousands of civilians turned themselves in to Marines, to be passed along to temporary stockades in the rear. The most hard-pressed Marine units were engineers, then supply troops. Roads were barely discernible paths, so they had to be engineered for modern traffic, and many bridges had to be built over gullies and other breaks in the terrain. Even with roads in place, it was difficult to push supplies forward to the rapidly advancing ground units; they moved ahead thousands of yards a day and were constantly on the brink of outrunning their supply dumps. It was difficult, also, for artillery units to keep pace with the advance, and the infantry had a difficult time maintaining contact with flank units, because the advance tended to broaden an already broad front. By April 3, the Marine divisions were on ground slated to fall on L-plus-15.

As the advance continued with surprising ease, a picture slowly emerged from prisoner interrogations. The main Japanese effort had gone into deeply fortifying the southern portion of the island. The XXIV Corps ran into the outlying positions on April 4, on the phase line established for L-plus-10. But the Marines were oriented east and north, and swallowing miles of lightly defended ground each day. Before the two Marine divisions could join the fight in the south, they had to secure the rest of the island.

By April 4, the 1st Marine Division had completed its cross-island advance and had thus run out of objectives. It turned to scouring land already in its hands and building up its logistical base. By then, Japanese troops cut off in the IIIAC zone had begun to coalesce into what the Marines eventually characterized as guerrilla forces that lived off the land in wild areas and exploited opportunities to attack patrols and rear-area facilities. Such forces also appeared in the rear of the 6th Division. These so-called guerrillas had to be painstakingly tracked by Marine units far more suited for intense modern conflict. Fortunately for the Americans, although the Japanese guerrillas were well motivated, they were not trained for such operations and were easily hunted down if they showed themselves. To help quell civilian complicity in the guerrilla operation, several thousand Okinawan males were interned in camps beginning on April 11. The Tenth Army eventually clamped down on all civilians and filled eight internment camps in the IIIAC zone with Okinawans of all ages and both sexes. This seemed to end the problem of civilian aid to guerrilla operations, but those small groups of isolated Japanese soldiers continued to operate in diminished circumstances throughout most of the campaign.

The 6th Marine Division continued to drive north -- literally driven on tanks and other vehicles. One reconnaissance force advanced 14 miles unopposed, then turned back to the main body. The 6th Engineer Battalion had a tough time widening and improving roads and replacing or bracing bridges at such a pace. On April 9, supplies began to come ashore on beaches much closer to the 6th Division front, and the 1st Armored Amtrac Battalion was committed to provide artillery support because the 15th Marines artillery battalions had such a difficult time keeping up with the rapidly moving infantry.

On April 7, Marine Air Group (MAG) 31 began to handle flight operations for its newly arrived squadrons at Yontan Airfield, and MAG-33 arrived on April 9. This relieved some of the ground-support burden on carrier air units, which were increasingly drawn into a battle of attrition with kamikaze units located in Japan and intermediate bases. Indeed, Marine air became almost wholly committed to XXIV Corps as it hit increasingly stiffer resistance in the south.

It took the 6th Marine Division until April 13 to locate a well-led, competent and powerful Japanese force -- on Mount Yae Take, in extreme northern Okinawa. A four-day battle involving Marine air and artillery and naval gunfire support reduced the enemy force of 1,500 and opened the door for the final northern push, which was completed on April 20. The 6th Marine Division's drive had cost 207 killed, 757 wounded and six missing by April 20, and the Marines had killed an estimated 2,000 Japanese troops.

Marine air, amply assisted by a sophisticated array of modern tools such as search, control and weather radars; landing force air-support control units equipped with advanced radio equipment; and frontline air control teams played a key role in supporting ground operations and forestalling kamikaze and conventional air attacks on the huge fleet that seemed to be a permanent fixture off Okinawa. Indeed, beginning on April 7, MAG-31 and MAG-33 fighter pilots scored hundreds of aerial victories off Okinawa, particularly in the north nearer to Japan. These included nocturnal kills by Marine squadrons equipped with F6F-5N Hellcat night fighters based ashore. Also, six Marine F4U Corsair squadrons were based aboard three fleet carriers, and they provided ground support and fleet cover. Indeed, Marine Corsairs took part in attacks on Kyushu airfields on March 18 and 19 that nearly swept kamikaze and conventional air units from the skies for several days. In return, Japanese aircraft damaged several American carriers, including USS Franklin, embarking two Marine F4U squadrons that saw a total of one day of offensive operations. By April 1945, Marine air was at the leading edge of technique and technology in support of modern combat operations across all three battle dimensions -- land, sea and air.

The XXIV Corps met its first really stiff opposition on the southern front on April 6. Thereafter, resistance became more violent and better organized. The defenses extended across the entire width of the island and to an undetermined depth. In fact, it was a concentric defense, complete and pervasive, centered on the town of Shuri. Not apparent at the outset, but increasingly obvious with each passing day, the hard defenses could not and would not be carried by merely two Army divisions supported by organic and corps artillery, even after the artillery was bolstered on April 7 by IIIAC's three 155mm gun battalions and three 155mm howitzer battalions -- not to mention Marine air based at Yontan and whatever carrier air the fleet had on hand for ground support. Next, beginning on April 9, all four artillery battalions of the 11th Marines and two-thirds of the Army's 27th Infantry Division were sent into the southern line, albeit with little effect.

By April 14, XXIV Corps had killed nearly 7,000 Japanese, but it had barely made a dent in the defenses north of Shuri. A corps attack on April 19 supported by 27 artillery battalions and 375 aircraft made negligible progress, then halted as the unperturbed Japanese troops moved back to their positions from underground shelters. The Army divisions advanced only after the Japanese withdrew from the advance defensive line on the night of April 23-24 to a more integrated line to the rear. On April 24, IIIAC was ordered to place one of its divisions in the Tenth Army reserve, and the 1st Marine Division was thus ordered to prepare to return to battle. (IIIAC's third division, the 2nd, had been returned to Saipan to prepare for an amphibious assault near Okinawa that never took place.) On April 30, the 1st Marine Division advanced to replace the 27th Division in the XXIV Corps zone, and that Army division was ordered north to replace the 6th Marine Division so it could enter the southern battle.

The infantry units that the 1st Marine Division replaced had been ground down to regiments little larger than battalions, and battalions little larger than companies. Dead ahead was the bulk of a Japanese infantry division holding a defensive sector the island command had just reorganized to higher levels of lethality. On the division's first full day on the line, the weather turned cool and rainy, a state that would prevail into July.

The division went into the offensive on May 2, the westernmost of three divisions in the attack. The 5th Marines was stymied at the outset, but the adjacent 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines (3/1), fell into a gap. The 1st Marines attempted to change direction to exploit the gap, and 3/1 advanced even farther in the rain before nightfall. On the other hand, 1/1, on the division's right, faced fierce opposition, and portions of the battalion that were cut off had to withdraw, after which 1/1 changed direction and won some new ground.

This baptismal day on the southern front was emblematic of the fighting that ensued. The Japanese made excellent use of broken ground and other natural cover, and the Marines were either stymied or fell into dead ground from which they could either advance or from which they had to withdraw to maintain a cohesive line against the uncanny knack the defenders showed for mounting enfilade movements. On May 3, the 5th Marines advanced more than 500 yards in its zone, but the 1st Marines was pinned down with heavy casualties, so the 5th had to pull back several hundred yards in places. There simply was no point at which the Marines could gain adequate leverage -- the same scenario the replaced Army divisions had faced in their battle.

General Ushijima still held many thousands of first-line troops in reserve. These men had been tied down defending beaches in southeastern Okinawa for landings that never took place. As the Japanese gained a finer sense of American tactics, it was put to Ushijima that an offensive using these fresh, well-trained and well-equipped troops might chasten the Americans and buy a great deal of time and flexibility. Some of the fresh troops were fed into the defensive sectors to make good the losses of weeks of bitter attritional warfare, but the bulk were held back to cover the suspect beaches or to serve as a mobile reserve. By April 22, most of the fresh force was fed into the Shuri sector to stiffen its defenses. Ultimately, however, a number of Ushijima's senior officers won an argument to launch a major tank-supported counteroffensive, including counterlandings behind American lines, that was to blunt the American offensive and perhaps throw it back.

Preceded by mass kamikaze attacks on rear areas on the island and logistical shipping offshore, the counteroffensive, including counterlandings on both coasts, began after dark on May 3. Artillery fire matched artillery fire at the front, while in the rear Marines opened fire on Japanese troops coming ashore on the beach on which Company B, 1/1, anchored the entire XXIV Corps line. This was not where the Japanese intended to land, and quick reaction by the defenders and confusion among the attackers created conditions for a Marine victory. Many more Marines were fed into the fire-lit battle, LVT(A)s (landing vehicles, tracked, assault) sealed the battlefield, and fresh troops hunted down infiltrators. Forewarned by this landing attempt, Marines quelled other attempts farther up the coast. Army troops also defended successfully on the eastern coast.

At dawn, behind an artillery curtain that never abated during the night and a rolling smoke barrage, the bulk of the Japanese Imperial Army's battle-hardened 24th Infantry Division crashed into a curtain of fire erected in front of the 7th and 77th Infantry divisions by 12 155mm and 8-inch gun and howitzer battalions and tag-team air attacks that would mount up to 134 sorties by the day's end. On May 4, the 1st Marine Division actually attacked in its zone in spite of Japanese efforts to win through to the east, but the division was stalled several hundred yards short of its objective line.

Far from delaying an American victory, the ill-advised Japanese counteroffensive used up the largest pool of seasoned fighters on the island, of which nearly 7,000 were killed. But other good fighters had remained in their excellent defensive sectors, and they showed no sign of cracking appreciably in the face of inexorable pressure across the entire corps front. In less than a week on the Shuri front, 649 Marines became casualties.

The 6th Marine Division began going into the southern line on May 7, squeezing in along the coast to the right of the 1st Marine Division, and IIIAC resumed control of both Marine divisions. From that point, despite interesting tactical embellishments, the battle to win Okinawa settled down to become a test of attritional theories, one based on attack and the other based on defense. The Japanese had the troops they had, and relatively few were trained infantry. The Americans had a larger pool of trained infantry, including ample replacements who, in the case of IIIAC, were used as logistical fillers until they were needed in the infantry battalions. Even then, attrition was high among all the American divisions -- 11,147 replacements were fed into Marine infantry units on Okinawa -- but when a Japanese veteran was killed, he could not be replaced.

Deadly combinations of spirited infantry assaults, overwhelming artillery and naval gunfire support, and ample air support were played like a piano to advance American units through the rest of May and most of June. The concentric lines of defense built and held by the Japanese never got easier to reduce, but inexorably the quality of the troops holding them shifted downward, and they fell, one after the other.

The 2nd Marine Division's 8th Marine Regiment took part in several landings on islands elsewhere in the Ryukyus in late May, then went ashore on Okinawa to fill out the 1st Marine Division for the final assaults of the campaign. An interesting footnote to Marine Corps history came about on June 18 when the Tenth Army commander, General Buckner, was killed by a Japanese artillery shell in the 8th Marines line while reconnoitering the front. The next senior general officer on the scene was Marine Maj. Gen. Roy Geiger, the IIIAC commanding general. Geiger, an aviator who had commanded the 1st Marine Aircraft Wing at Guadalcanal, I Marine Amphibious Corps at Bougainville and IIIAC at Guam and Okinawa, was spot-promoted to lieutenant general to become the first and only Marine and the first and only naval aviator -- perhaps the first and only aviator -- ever to command an American army in the field.

The Japanese defenses were all but overwhelmed by June 16, and Ushijima realized that the end was near. On June 19, he dissolved his staff and ordered all available troops to go over to guerrilla operations. On June 21, organized resistance came to an end in the 6th Marine Division zone, which encompassed the southern shore of the island. By then, Japanese troops were surrendering by the hundreds. The 1st Marine Division mounted its final attacks of the campaign, also on June 21, and reported by nightfall that all its objectives had been secured. The XXIV Corps made similar announcements. It thus fell to General Geiger to declare Okinawa secure following a bloody 82-day battle. The final official flag-raising ceremony on a Pacific War battlefield took place at the Tenth Army headquarters at 1000 hours, June 22, 1945. Earlier that morning, Ushijima and his chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Isamu Cho, committed ritual suicide.

The battle had been among the most brutal of the Pacific War. The Navy suffered its greatest casualties for a single engagement. More than 12,000 Americans were killed and a further 50,000 were wounded. More than 150,000 Japanese -- many of them civilians -- were killed during the battle. Despite the casualties, preparations were quickly underway for the long-anticipated invasion of Japan. All hands turned to in order to begin preparations to invade Kyushu. Already, Army Air Forces bomber groups that had been in Europe on V-E Day joined Marine Tactical Air Force units operating from Okinawa's airfields and thousands of American, British and Canadian carrier-based aircraft in the prelanding bombardment that was to lay waste to the southernmost Home Island before a contemplated October invasion was set in motion.

Who could have known on June 22, 1945, that only some six weeks separated America's Pacific warriors from the blinding flashes over Hiroshima and Nagasaki that would send the vast majority home to the peace so many of their brave comrades had died to secure.

Regards,
Hist2004

Para
07-02-2005, 01:14 PM
Some thing that is never mentioned that there was a large chunk of the Royal Navy Pacific Fleet fighting along side the Americans. We had a number of our fleet carriers there. Very little got reported on this due to fact that their flight decks were made out of 3 feet of steel instead of wood like the American carriers. Even though they where hit by Kamikaze planes they barely made a dent in the deck. If it had to levelled of it was just a case of pouring some concrete into the dent and they back in business

XS203598
07-02-2005, 07:30 PM
Very little got reported on this due to fact that their flight decks were made out of 3 feet of steel instead of wood like the American carriers. Even though they where hit by Kamikaze planes they barely made a dent in the deck. If it had to levelled of it was just a case of pouring some concrete into the dent and they back in business

Interesting, I thought it 'twas the fact that all the British press was learning how Montgomery won the war in Europe. Three feet thick decks? Interesting as well.

XS203598
07-03-2005, 09:05 PM
Fellow List Members, please excuse this long post, but no British carrier had 36 inch steel deck armour. Here is a long post for your reading:

Were Armored Flight Decks on British Carriers Worthwhile?
by Stuart Slade and Richard Worth
Updated 14 June 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Armor Protection on American and British Carriers
©2000 Stuart Slade



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a VERY complex design issue that defies easy answers. The question is not so much whether armor is useful (both US and British designs had very roughly comparable armor protection in terms of weight) but where does the designer put it.

US designers treated the entire flight deck, hangar deck and island assemblies as superstructure. The strength deck was the hangar deck and this is where they put the armor. The plusses of this configuration are that it carries the heavy weight of armor low, making stability problems less dreadful, permits a very light deck structure that's easy to repair and allows a long flight deck that makes operating aircraft easy. That light structure also initiates bombs, hopefully ensuring that damage is confined above the armor deck. The big negative is that it means the hangar deck is essentially unprotected.

British design practice with the Illustrious and Implacable classes was to armor the flight deck, making the flight deck the strength deck. The plusses here are that if the armor holds, bombs can be kept out of the ship completely. The negatives are that the size of lifts is restricted, stability problems are hellish and the airgroup capacity is comparatively small.

The US went the way it did because they had plenty of aircraft, used deck parks and envisaged launching mass strikes. They were able to base carrier defense on having fighters. The British were hobbled by the RAF that allocated few resources to the FAA, so the carriers had few and obsolete fighters. They had to build their carriers to take damage.

In fact, the British designs failed. Off Okinawa, the resistance of the British carriers seemed impressive but in reality the damage they took was severe. Having the hangar inside the hull girder made the hull structure weak and the ships were deformed by comparatively minor damage. Note how quickly nearly all the armored carriers were scrapped postwar - surveys showed they had irreparable hull damage. In contrast, the Essex's, which suffered much more severe damage, lasted for decades.

The severe damage suffered by the British armored carriers is documented by their post-war surveys. These surveys were carried out to determine the suitability of the ships for modernization.

Of the British armored carriers, Formidable and Illustrious were write-offs due to war damage. By the end of the war, Illustrious was in very poor condition; her centerline shaft was history due to structural deformation and her machinery was shot. Formidable had raped herself when a Firefly (sic – aircraft that caused the damage was actually a Corsair) rolled off a lift and raked the hangar with 20 mm gunfire. This started a very bad fire which was contained within the hangar and acted like a furnace. The heat deformed the hull and that was it.

Indomitable was actually used in the post-war fleet and was modernized (lightly). In 1951 she had a gasoline explosion in her hangar deck. This was actually quite minor (an Essex would have shrugged it off) but the fact it was contained and was within the hull girder caused severe damage. She was patched with concrete for the Coronation Review, then scrapped.

Victorious was surveyed, found to be in reasonably good condition and rebuilt. The rebuild was fiendishly expensive, largely because the flight deck was the hangar deck and partly due to idiotically bad project planning.

The Victorious conversion was one of those tragedies that was almost comical. The original plans did not include re-engining the ship; this was a decision taken late in the rebuild process by which time most of the hull work (about 80 percent) had been completed. A machinery survey showed that the boilers had only about ten years of life left and it was decided they should be replaced. This meant that a lot of work had to be undone and then redone. The awful bit is that she was still within that ten year period when she was prematurely decommissioned. The Ship's Cover is pretty sulphurous in places. Another tragedy is that this monumental mess disillusioned the fleet with any sort of rebuild program (which had echoes in all sorts of places including the Type 15 program).

Another point which should be brought up is that the armored box hangar on the RN CV's was restricted to a height of 16 feet maximum and was as low as 14 feet in the upper hangars on the Indomitable, Implacable and Indefatigable. This restricted the use of the F4U Corsair fighter in the 14 feet hangars. This also hampered the usefulness of the British carriers postwar as aircraft grew in size. By contrast, the USN carriers had a hangar clear height of 20 feet in the Lexington class, 17 feet 3 inches in the Yorktown class and 17 feet 6 inches in the Essex class. This greater height allowed the Essex class to easily adapt to the much larger postwar jet aircraft.

The planned refits of the Implacable and Indefatigable would have seen the two hangars merged into one which would have made these ships much more capable. Sadly, the problems with the Victorious rebuild killed that plan off. In retrospect, they should have gone through the upgrade process first; as ships, they were much better than the first four armored carriers and were in good condition.

We also have to be very careful when looking at apparent ship histories in the 1945 - 1955 period. There is a lot of statistical deceit used here (Eric Grove in "Vanguard to Trident" makes an eye-opening read). Ships that were apparently in good condition and in service were actually laid up or otherwise non-operational. Illustrious is a good example. Her Ship's Cover is quite clear that she had never recovered from the damage she'd taken in WW2 and was limited to around 22 knots for all practical purposes. That's why she was used for experimental purposes - she wasn't much use for anything else. Indomitable is another example of statistical deceit. After her 1950 gasoline explosion (shortly after she finished her refit), she was completely useless and had to be towed to Spithead for the Coronation Review. As soon as that was over, she went to the breakers.

Two books, the Eric Grove "Vanguard to Trident" and Norman Friedman's "British Carrier Aviation" give a feel for this rather depressing period in history. Grove's book in particular is superb for providing a feel for the interplay between technology and politics that went on during this period. One interesting point that he brings out is that a great problem the RN had was in manning ships, even when money was available.

It is also not true that the Illustrious class carriers were worn out by hard war service. The last pair were only used for a couple of years and didn't work that hard. They certainly did not do the long deployments undertaken by the US carriers during the war. Indefatigable and Implacable were badly built (as were most British wartime ships - Admiralty records related to planned reconstructions quoted in Vanguard to Trident implicitly give war-built cruisers a life of only ten years). No criticism intended there - emphasis was on quantity rather than quality.

The Midway class is a much more complex design problem than just the adoption of an armored deck. In fact, the armored deck was not actually adopted - it grew out of other factors in the ship's design. Norman Friedman's "US Carriers - An Illustrated Design History" goes into this in detail, but, in summary, the Midway's were the first non-treaty restricted carrier designs in the US Fleet. British input to the design was actually very mixed - even after the Illustrious bombing (usually quoted as an example of the value of an armored deck), some British comment to the US Navy was very anti-deck armor. Originally, the Midway's were to have had a heavy (8 inch) deck gun battery. Eventually, this was discarded and the weight saved was used to provide two inches of flight deck armor. This was in addition to the 3.5 inches of hangar deck armor sported by the Essex's. The suggestion that they are a response to the UK armored carrier designs is largely a myth - the discussions that lead to the Midway's actually predate the Illustrious class.

Don't get me wrong; the strategic and operational logic that resulted in the Illustrious class was (for the Royal Navy) quite correct - the vulnerability of the ships to internal damage was unexpected and surprising. That vulnerability made their designs essentially failures since the sacrifices made to give them their heavy protection were not fully justified by their performance. That could not have been known pre-war, nor could the rapid escalation in weapons lethality that degraded the value of their deck armor.

The British dumped the armored deck for their last carrier designs and adopted a very Essex-like approach. It is a shame those ships didn't get built - they were really good-looking designs.

I think there is an important point here which should be included. We've been discussing the Essex/Illustrious classes in terms of armored flight deck versus armored hangar deck. In fact, this is not quite the key differential. The real point of difference is that the Essex class had an external hangar, that is, the hangar is located outside the ship's girder while the Illustrious class had an internal hangar; that is, the hangar is contained within the ship's girder.

An external hangar offers large side openings so that aircraft can be warmed up on the hangar deck, loading and unloading aircraft is made easier, underway replenishment becomes easier and safer and, most importantly, flight deck damage and hangar deck fires are outside the main hull and therefore of less structural consequence. Deck edge lifts are also very easy to install.

An internal hangar is contained within the ship's girder and is enveloped by the ship's hull. It is easier to protect, has better access to machinery shops and maintenance facilities and offers much better protection for the aircraft against bad weather. Deck edge lifts are difficult to install, of questionable value and have serious structural implications.

In structural terms, having an external hangar means that the upper strength deck is the hangar deck. This then means that the hull girder is shallower and thus more highly stressed. The best way to offset this is to thicken up the hangar deck so protection (armor) here grows naturally out of the design concept. If the flight deck is to be armored, that armor has to be in addition to the hangar deck protection. It is not often realized that Midway started life as a parallel design to Essex, intended to explore the effect of that extra protection on the Essex design. On 27,000 tons, it was found that deck protection had a disastrous effect on airgroup capacity (as few as 60 aircraft rated capacity at a time when Essex was rated at 110). This bought protection against 250 pound bombs. After 1940, the Midway design went its own way, becoming a quite different program to the Essex class. Note though, that the hangar deck remained the strength deck.

Starting with the Forrestal class, the size of the carriers meant that stress requirements forced the abandonment of the external hangar and hangar deck as strength deck concepts. A shallow hull of that size is a design impracticality. In the Forrestal and after, the flight deck is the strength deck, protection considerations had no influence whatsoever on the flight deck design. In fact, these carriers do not have armored flight decks. By the way, there is a construction trick that allows the Forrestal and later carriers to have their flight decks as strength decks and deck edge lifts without compromising hull strength. That trick is still highly classified.

The advantage of the internal hangar was that, by using the flight deck as strength deck, the British carriers had a much deeper hull girder, so the designers could use substantially lighter hull structural members, giving them a larger carrier for a given displacement. In fact, the Illustrious class are so well designed in weight economy terms that even today it is impossible to find areas to make additional savings. The big problem was that, since the flight deck was the strength deck, holes (lifts, etc.) had to be kept to a minimum, so the internal hangar concept immediately translated into fewer and smaller lifts - compromising the ability to launch and recover aircraft.

Unfortunately, there was a hidden problem that no one realized at that time. The hangar forms a large open void in the ship's hull girder. When faced with shock, this allows the girder to deform and, once deformed, the damage is irreversible. The gravity of the shock problem only became apparent with the magnetic mines used in 1939 and when the ships started taking near misses. In effect, the hulls became progressively twisted and rippled as damage mounted up. This killed Formidable and Illustrious (both ships were surveyed in 1947 to assess the expenditure required to repair them and it was found that both were beyond economical repair. In effect, they needed their hulls completely reconstructed and plans to rebuild them were abandoned). The gasoline explosion on Indomitable had the same effect; again hull damage was beyond economical repair.

Technically speaking, this is also a risk with the Forrestals and their descendants. Two things help out, though. One is the sheer size of the US carriers - they are much bigger in proportion to the void represented by their hangars. Another is the density of construction. The second thing is that US Carriers are built incredibly tough. Not only were they designed to take a terrible battering, but the latest ones were put together by the finest shipyard in the world. In contrast, the Illustrious class were built under treaty requirements and used great weight discipline throughout. This resulted in a lot of design compromises in power train, hull structure, etc., etc. Some of these were put right with the Implacable class.

Ark Royal and Eagle were the last gasp of the British pre-war carrier design. They were effectively enlarged Implacables. By the time their design was finished (1942), the British had realized that the sacrifices they were making for the heavy protection of an internal hangar could not be justified and they went to an external hangar much along the US lines. Okinawa proved this point; although often quoted as pointing to the value of an armored deck, careful analysis does not bear this out. The British carriers never came under the weight of attack that the US carriers suffered and never took the same density of hits. It is not immediately apparent, but most Kamikaze hits bounced off US carriers doing little or no damage - the ones that started the big fires were the exception. A critical factor seems to have been deck parks - if the stricken carrier had deck-parked aircraft, she was in trouble regardless of where her hangar was.

This debate between the virtues of internal and external hangars is history now; structural considerations mean that most modern carriers have to have internal hangars, regardless of their relative merits and limitations. Where and how carrier protection was designed grew out of that debate. What it does illustrate is one very important thing - carriers are unique in that their design is dictated by the aircraft they carry and how those aircraft are to be used. It is not correct to say that the USN was right and the RN was wrong or vice versa or that one design was better than another. The navies used their aircraft in very different ways and their carrier designs reflected that difference. When they started to use their aircraft in the same way, their carrier designs converged.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Armored Box: The War's Verdict

©2002 Richard Worth

In Nelson to Vanguard, D.K. Brown critiques the choices made by designers of aircraft carriers. “I would suggest that both the RN and USN were right for the wars they planned to fight, the RN in narrow seas, facing shore-based aircraft while the USN expected to engage the Japanese fleet in the open Pacific.”1 Defenders of the armor-box carriers inevitably cite these differing scenarios as justification for the Illustrious design, yet they do so without Brown’s support - his comment was directed toward the question of open hangars versus enclosed hangars, and he is no defender of the armored box. He states outright that his choice for a British carrier design in that period would be an improved Ark Royal.2 The armor-box hangar, for all its legendary virtue, never justified the legend.

The box armor requirement dragged a crowd of design burdens on its coattails. Stuart has addressed the unforeseen structural issues. Lift configuration, freeboard, habitability, ship’s speed - the box restricted them all. But the salient fact, overshadowing all others, was the limit it imposed on air complement. Here, however, a fundamental misconception has clouded the armor debate; the leadership’s decision for smaller air groups preceded the flight deck armor, a feature subsequently superimposed on the preliminary design work.3 These two steps, though distinct, became inseparably meshed in the design’s wartime shortcomings and thus must be considered together. The small-group specification put the ships at an initial disadvantage, and the armor then canceled any hope for a remedy, cramping the hangars and reducing the space available for deck parks.

Wartime exploits in the Mediterranean have given a false impression that the armored carriers were intended specifically for that narrow-seas setting, but Britain had worldwide commitments. The Admiralty’s eyes, roving over the vastness of the Indian Ocean and South China Sea, never myopically fixed on a European land-based air threat. Difficult negotiations with Japan raised the immediate prospect of a Far East war, and Greene and Massignani specifically link this threat to the Admiralty’s prevailing battle doctrine.4 Fleet projections in the mid-1930’s revealed the true priorities, calling for the deployment of eight fleet carriers - five of them to the East.5 The narrow European seas, often touted as the reason for the armored box, exerted minimal influence. The Mediterranean hadn’t suddenly shrunk after Ark Royal was designed.

But something had indeed changed - the treaty situation - and this, rather than geography, gave birth to the armor-box carrier. As the treaty expiration date drew near, the British foresaw their freedom to build multiple carriers, which led them to think they need not crowd each individual ship with a powerful air complement6 - the dubious decision that made the armored carrier possible. It paralleled the navy’s willingness to build small but numerous cruisers, though along a different line of thought - design studies revealed that small carriers would prove cost-ineffective and operationally inferior; yet small air groups had an allure in placing few FAA eggs in any one basket, however large the basket might be.7 While no one dared apply such logic to battleships—arguing for only two or three guns per ship - it had some validity as applied to carriers in view of the limited FAA resources at the time. However, it forfeited the potential impetus for increased procurement inherent in a fleet of half-empty carriers,8 and it neglected any consideration of wartime mobilization.

The Illustrious project gestated amid unprecedented haste and informality in the British design bureau,9 permanently masking much of the designers’ rationale, yet hints have survived. The RAF mantra that “the bomber will always get through” certainly played a role.10 Given the contrasting “needs” for a small air group aboard a large carrier, the option to devote a hefty tonnage to protecting the air group seems an obvious one; and to armor the flight deck against the sort of weapon carried by the newest FAA bomber (the Skua’s 500-lb SAP bomb) indicates balanced thinking, if not foresight. Clues like these provide only a partial picture of the design process, but World War II would precisely gauge the design results.

As things turned out, the Mediterranean Campaign failed to fulfill its billing as the quintessential narrow-sea setting complete with a high incidence of bomb hits. During the entire war, only fifteen bombs scored hits on Allied carriers in the Mediterranean, a number surpassed in the first year of the fight against Japan. Of the fifteen hits, the Illustrious class flight deck armor defeated only one - Victorious shrugged off an anti-personnel bomb dropped at low altitude by an Re.2001 fighter.11 Indomitable took two 500-kg hits, but both of them avoided her armor which thus did nothing to preserve her flight deck; the ship was non-operational for the remainder of the action. Of the two 500-kg bombs dropped on Formidable, one struck her deck armor and sent pieces of it shooting all the way down into the ship’s machinery spaces. In the most famous Mediterranean incident, Illustrious survived numerous hits, but only one 500-kg bomb found her deck armor.12

So the armored box’s primary achievement in this narrow-sea setting was to detonate the two Formidable and Illustrious bombs high in the hull, which certainly enhanced survivability, though not in the way the designers intended. The hangars and their planes suffered increased damage, but crippling damage to the vitals became less likely. There’s no debating the advantage of this; yet debate continues, and properly so, because of the extra ounce of prevention the ships could have enjoyed with a larger CAP. Accepting a small fighter group meant accepting a greater probability of bomb hits, with the hopes of minimizing the damage those bombs caused - a strange set of priorities. Of course, the carrier’s escorts might dispute the entire notion of minimizing the damage - the armored box did them no good, in contrast to the universal blessing of a hefty CAP. And hangar armor, unlike fighters, could never counter a flight of torpedo planes. However, British planners had not foreseen that fighter interception would become an effective defense against fast, modern aircraft.

Apart from this self-defense issue, a Yorktown-sized air group would have greatly increased the ships’ offensive capability. With a larger airgroup, how much more could the British have accomplished at Taranto? Would Vittorio Veneto have survived Matapan if attacked by twice as many Albacores? Throughout the campaign, British carriers suffered from limited offensive muscle, which in turn allowed the enemy to retain a greater ability to strike back. The armored carrier design seemingly argued that the best defense was a weak offense.

It should be noted that the armored box was intended to defeat not only bombs but cruiser shells as well.13 Yet the “narrow sea” never proved so narrow as to force an armored carrier into the line of 6-inch gunfire. Naturally, the designers can’t be blamed for lacking postwar hindsight at a time when some carriers still sported cruiser-caliber guns, but war experience revealed that the compromises they accepted were unnecessary to the ships’ eventual mission.

It was in the open waters of the Pacific, late in the war, that the armored flight decks encountered a threat they could defeat - the kamikaze.14 The ensuing “sweepers, man your brooms” publicity properly underscored the potential benefits of flight deck armor, but also obscured the actual record; the Royal Navy’s own survey cited the flight deck armor as instrumental in defeating only one kamikaze. Even so, popular acclaim singled out the armor factor when the full story was much more revealing.

The British received relatively tame treatment from the kamikazes, as noted in David Hamer’s overview of the Okinawa campaign: “The Americans were operating four times as many fast carriers as the British, and the weight of Kamikaze attacks against them was many times greater again: ten Kikusui (massed suicide attacks) being flung against them whereas there were no such attacks on the British carriers.”15 A tally of Japanese aircraft lost during this time illustrates the disproportionate burden; the American TF 58 (including fifteen fast carriers) destroyed 1,908 Japanese planes, while the British TF 57 with its four fast carriers managed only 75 kills.16 Despite this glaring disparity, kamikazes damaged four carriers in each task force - every British carrier suffered at least one hit. The only armored carrier to reach war’s end without kamikaze damage was Implacable, which arrived on station at the end of the Okinawa campaign. What would have become of the British carrier fleet if it had faced the same intensity of attack as the Americans? The prospects are sobering.

The frequency of hits on British carriers did not equate to extensive casualties, and the hangar armor certainly saved lives once a plane actually struck, at least in one instance.17 But again, armor was not a solitary factor in limiting the casualties. The British never faced the prospect of a kamikaze hit amid an American-sized crowd of armed and fueled aircraft.18 The restricted air group had this ironic side-benefit; it provided less kindling in case of fire. Avgas storage, a proven killer of carriers, was severely limited19 as was aircraft weaponry.20 In this case, the fact that Illustrious presented a lesser threat to the enemy also made her a tougher target - analogous perhaps to sending a battleship into action with only a few rounds of ammunition in hopes of preventing a magazine explosion. Unlike a battleship, though, a fully stocked aircraft carrier can shoot down the enemy “shells” before they reach striking range.

So the Mediterranean experience recurred in the Pacific, with the ships showing occasionally increased resistance to hits that an enlarged fighter group might have prevented altogether. By this time, however, no one doubted the value of fighter interception. Brown puts it in simple terms: “More fighters would have been better protection than armour.”21 Without an advantage in defense, the armor-box layout could not justify its weaker offense. British planners, seeing the correlation of America’s open hangars and offensive muscle, turned about-face in their final fleet carrier design of the war, the Malta project. Initially featuring the hangar armor of its predecessors, Malta eventually abandoned not only the armored box, but all flight deck armor and even the enclosed hangar itself.22

Debates over the armor-box carriers can take many forms, focusing on the flight deck in particular, the armored box in general, the very concept of an enclosed hangar, or the entirety of the ship design. Discussions can account for external factors such as FAA mismanagement and radar advances, while noting the ships’ commendable war record and their inglorious postwar lingering. While the Illustrious design within its 1930’s context remains subject to varying critiques, it’s clear that in wartime the armored box limited the ships both offensively and defensively - and found no vindication during World War II.

Footnotes

Nelson to Vanguard: Warship Design 1923-1945 by D.K. Brown, page 56 (henceforth listed as "Nelson to Vanguard).
Ibid.
The Design and Construction of British Warships 1939-45: Major Surface Warships by D.K. Brown, page 53.
The Naval War in the Mediterranean by Jack Greene and Alessandro Massignani, pages 38-9. See also The Royal Navy and the Capital Ship in the Interwar Period by Joseph Moretz: War with Japan was “the one encounter the Royal Navy had consistently trained to meet,” page 239.
British Carrier Aviation by Norman Friedman, page 132.
Ibid.
The Illustrious specification for thirty-six planes represented the larger of two options under consideration. British Carrier Aviation, page 132.
Brown relates Illustrious project decisions to an increase in defense spending. Nelson to Vanguard, page 49.
Air Power and the Royal Navy 1914-1945 by Geoffrey Till, page 77. The design leadership managed to “cut the usual stately progress of carrier design from three years to three months.”
American & British Aircraft Carrier Development 1919-1941 by Thomas C. Hone, Norman Friedman, and Mark D. Mandeles, page 93.
The intended war load, a 630-kg AP bomb, was not available to the Italian squadron at that time. The Naval War in the Mediterranean, page 248.
For a full description of these hits, see British Carrier Aviation, page 147.
The Illustrious hangar had 4.5-inch thick side armor, subsequently reduced to 1.5-inch for Indomitable and the Implacable class. Nelson to Vanguard, pages 50-51.
“There was one [kamikaze] hit on the armour deck where the fleet thought the protection had been invaluable; in the others it was thought that the structure of an unarmored deck would have resisted the glancing blow.” Nelson to Vanguard, page 56.
Bombers versus Battleships by David Hamer, page 323.
Ibid, page 367.
The one attack in which the deck armor proved important - on 9 May 1945, Victorious endured three kamikaze hits, the second of which dished in a section of the flight deck and managed to pierce it. The ship remained in action. Nelson to Vanguard, page 205.
Brown’s survey of the armored carriers notes only one instance of a serious kamikaze-induced fire among parked aircraft, aboard Formidable on 9 May 1945. Nelson to Vanguard, page 205.
Illustrious, though larger than Ark Royal, carried only about half as much petrol - 50,540 gallons versus 100,000 gallons. British and Empire Warships of the Second World War by H.T. Lenton, pages 101, 103.
Bomb and torpedo stowage went from about 225 tons in Ark Royal to about 175 tons in Illustrious. British Carrier Aviation, page 134.
Nelson to Vanguard, page 56.
British Carrier Aviation, pages 287-296; also Nelson to Vanguard, page 54.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Editor's Notes
1) The armor protection for the Illustrious class was as follows:

The Flight Deck over the hangar consisted of structurally worked 120 lbs. NC armor (3 inches), which was considered proof against 6 inch (100 lbs. projectiles) plunging fire below 23,000 yards and 500 lbs. SAP bombs dropped from 7,000 feet. The hangar sides were 180 lbs. C armor (4.5 inches) and the hangar bulkheads were of 80 lbs. NC plating. This was considered adequate to protect against 6 inch gun fire at ranges over 7,000 yards.

The armor protection for the magazines was 180 lbs. C armor on the ship's side and 120 and 100 lbs. NC armor on the hangar deck.

The side protection system was design to withstand a 750 lbs. TNT contact charge and consisted of an air-liquid-air "sandwich" system with a depth of 14 feet and ran between stations 61 and 121, 240 feet in all, and continuous from outer bottom to 9 inches above the main deck.

The Indomitable class had similar protection except that the hangar side protection was reduced from 180 lbs. to 60 lbs. C armor (1.5 inches).

The protection in Implacable and Indefatigable was also similar to the Illustrious class except that the hangar side and end protection was reduced to 60 lbs. NC while the lower hangar deck (top of citadel) was 60 to 100 lbs. NC armor. Protection to the steering gear was 120 lbs. NC. As a result of trials on Job 74 a protective bulkhead of 55 lbs. was fitted in lieu of the 60 lbs. bulkhead on previous ships.

2) It should be understood that of the eight hits suffered by HMS Illustrious off Malta and the further two hits inflicted while at Malta, only one struck the armored box and that one penetrated the 3 inch deck armor and exploded in the hangar, causing serious damage to the forward lift and a bad fire which destroyed several aircraft. According to D.K. Brown RCNC, writing about the damage in his Warship Issue No. 28 "Attack and Defence" article:

"It is interesting to note that the armoured hangar, provided at such great expense, proved of no value . . . The ship was also lucky in that several hits were close together so that the later ones added little to the earlier damage. On the other hand, to withstand 8 hits and 2 near misses from 500 kg bombs was a great achievement. Her designer, W.A.D. Forbes, Captain Boyd and the crew all had reason for pride in their work."
The armored decks of these carriers were intended to resist 500 lbs. bombs, not the 500 kg (1,100 lbs.) bombs that the Germans used during these attacks. The failure of the armored deck on HMS Illustrious to resist the much larger bomb is thus not so surprising.
Tony DiGiulian

mudbunny
07-04-2005, 12:22 PM
I had good friend who ran "Battle of Okinawa" tours on the island and for anyone interested, the battle for Sugarloaf Hill was the key battle in the Southern part of the island. It's a fantastic battle to read about.

FuturePara
07-04-2005, 07:18 PM
Can someone please explain this to me. I constantly see both the Normandy Invasion, and the Okinawa invasion referred to as the greatest amphibious invasion of all time.
In all truth and honesty, was it really Normany, or Okinawa?

FuturePara
07-04-2005, 07:18 PM
Can someone please explain this to me. I constantly see both the Normandy Invasion, and the Okinawa invasion referred to as the greatest amphibious invasion of all time.
In all truth and honesty, was it really Normandy, or Okinawa?

FuturePara
07-04-2005, 07:19 PM
Can someone please explain this to me. I constantly see both the Normandy Invasion, and the Okinawa invasion referred to as the greatest amphibious invasion of all time.
In all truth and honesty, was it really Normandy, or Okinawa?

FuturePara
07-04-2005, 07:21 PM
I have heard that both Okinawa and Normandy were the largest amphibious invasions of WWII.
Which of the true really was?

FuturePara
07-04-2005, 07:37 PM
Ugh, sorry mods

mudbunny
07-04-2005, 09:14 PM
If you post that one more time I'm going to have to kill you.

Seriously, the Normandy invasion was the largest invasion by SEA and AIR. Per the "Final Overlord Invasion Plan" in Stephen Ambroses "D-
Day" book, we landed by sea AND air NINE Combat Divisions in France on that day. It consisted of the 101st Airborne, 82nd Airborne, 6th British Airborne, U.S 4th, 29th and !st Inf. Divsions, British 3rd and 50th Inf. Divisions and the Canadian 1st Inf. Division. Mixed among those Divisions were units from Ireland and just about every other Allied country. I'm not up on my Battle of Okinawa history but I think it consisted of 2 Marine Divisions and 1 or 2 Army Divisions commanded by General Simon Buckner. The original thread contained an article and the guy that wrote it needs to get his facts straight. I pray to god that he isn't writing textbooks. Without the Airborne landings in France it still would have made Normandy the largest. As far as importance, that is certainly subjective. My opinion is that if the Battle of Okinawa would have preceded an invasion of the Japanese mainland then Okinawa would have played a bigger role than Normandy, but we didn't land on mainland Japan, opting instead to drop 2 Atomic bombs. The Normandy invasion opened a second front against Hitler put his diabolical ass in a vice with the Russians supplying the pressure from the Eastern front. I hope this answers your question, the war in Europe is somewhat of a hobby of mine.

"In this column I want to tell you what the opening of the second front entailed, so that you can know and appreciate and forever be humbly grateful to those both dead and alive who did it for you."
-Ernie Pyle, June 12, 1944

Johnnyringo
07-04-2005, 10:18 PM
I had good friend who ran "Battle of Okinawa" tours on the island and for anyone interested, the battle for Sugarloaf Hill was the key battle in the Southern part of the island. It's a fantastic battle to read about.

I went on a tour of Okinawa battle sites when I was there... saw sugarloaf and crawled around the tunnels. My favorite part was seeing the Japanese Naval underground headquarters. It's weird looking out from where pill boxes used to be and seeing a thriving downtown area... times have changed eh?

hist2004
07-05-2005, 09:25 AM
Can someone please explain this to me. I constantly see both the Normandy Invasion, and the Okinawa invasion referred to as the greatest amphibious invasion of all time.
In all truth and honesty, was it really Normandy, or Okinawa?

FuturePara-

The invasion of Normandy was significant because it was the beginning of the liberation of Europe,
and is accorded (and rightly so) it’s place in history. The invasion of Okinawa “told” the allies what
to expect in an invasion of Japan. The fanaticism of the Japanese soldier cannot be overestimated.
Today we hear of the “Muslim Extremists” and of their determination to carry out Jihad. Compared
to the Japanese soldier of WWII, they are “moderately extreme”. The Jihad fighter of today thinks
he’s going to a better place and will be rewarded by Allah. When confronted by superior firepower
many Taliban & AL Qaeda surrender. This wasn’t the case with the Japanese soldier. The Japanese
revered their Emperor like a “God”. Defeat and surrender was abhorrent to the Japanese fighting
man because (with their Bushido code) they saw themselves as disgraced in the eyes of the Emperor.
A war wary U.S. was prepared to commit troops (that had already been fighting for 2
years in Europe) to the invasion of Japan. The battle of Okinawa and the Japanese determination
to defend it told the U.S. that an invasion of Japan would be at a cost that would dwarf Normandy.
See below link for the planned invasion of Japan and let me know what you think.

Operation Downfall (The Invasion of Japan)

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8141/downfall.html

Regards,
Hist2004

mudbunny
07-05-2005, 09:27 PM
I went on a tour of Okinawa battle sites when I was there... saw sugarloaf and crawled around the tunnels. My favorite part was seeing the Japanese Naval underground headquarters. It's weird looking out from where pill boxes used to be and seeing a thriving downtown area... times have changed eh?

Yes they have. And the nickname "the rock" is a lot more fitting for Okinawa than it is for Alcatraz. You don't have dirt on "the rock" it's just finely ground rock. The red dirt never comes out of BDU's either. You really have to dig the coral out of your skin or it makes a real nasty scar. anyways, the island is a great place but the people are really what makes it a "great place". I have the utmost respect for the Japanese people and their culture. What years were you there johnnyringo?

Johnnyringo
07-05-2005, 11:02 PM
98 and 2000 from around July through January...