We got a super discussion going with the Yalu crossing and Anzio. I trust we can get even more people involved in one on the propose invasion of Japan in 1945. To frame the discussion, I am going to suggest that we consider two assumptions. One, that we did not employ the atomic weapons (for whatever reason). Second, that the plan was the approved course of action. Could we have succeeded in invading Japan and terminating the war?
DJ

I think if we attempted to take the Japanese mainland by invasion force, we would have been a lot like the Russians and Germans in there war across eastern Asia. We would have eventually won, and even landed fairly unopposed. The problem would be taking the country town by town, city by city, mile by mile. The amount of civilian casualties whould have been huge, we would probably need to level entire urban areas. The term civilian would be difficult to apply when faced with an "army" of peasants armed with sharpened sticks, pitch forks and the like. The battle for Japan would have taken over a year to route out all the small bands of guerilla fighters, especially from the mountainous areas.

The cities and industrial centers would have been leveled much like the German ones, their navy was non-existant so the country would have been blockaded, the Russians had started to occupy the northern islands, and don't forget the Chinese Army would have been part of the follow on forces. Those guys would have shown the Japanese population no mercy!

By this time, US nightfighters like the P-61B, the P-38M and the P-82G would have ruled the night skies, eliminating their only defense from the B-29s, the Irvings (Gekko). The jet powered P-80 fighters would have ruled the daylight skies along with P-51Ks and late model Corsairs, F-8F Bearcats and F-7F Tigercats. We had top-notch fighters coming into play at the end of WW2.

On the ground, they would not have stopped the T-26 Pershings. Even in its hayday, the Japanese Army was a foot army and their armor was no match for our earliest tanks like the M5 Stuart and M3 Lee. M4 105mm howitzers with flamethrowers would have eliminated entire villages. It would not be pretty.

Morning Folks While on the subject of Japan, I would like to announce that the movie WINDTALKERS is coming out this coming week end. It has Nicholas Cage in it, And for those not familiar with the subject it evolves around the story of how the People of the Navaho nation came to help defend thier nation against the nation of Japan and using thier
native lanquage to commincate with others U.S. troops helped to save many lives, and helped to turn the tide of the battle in U.S. favor sense up to this point the Japanese Army had been intercepting U.S. transmissions and hence knew what we would be doing. BUT the Wind-Talkers lanquage was not something the Japanesse could understand, So it helped our troops. Any it looks like it should be a great movie. So if you get a chance, Go see it. I know I am!!

DAGGER-1 "When Science Fails, Brute Force Wins"

It would certainly have been a hellish invasion.
The japanese population had been brought to believe that the american barbarians were going
to rape all the women and kill everyone... they were terrified...
Also, some fighters prefered to die rather than to give up. By doing so, they would certainly have taken
civilians with them...
Also, US troops would've had to take measures against the population as it would've faught alongside
it's army. in the many mountains, combats could've dragged along...
But, what would Hiro Hito have done ?
When would he have capiyulated ? And would the population have followed his orders as easily as it
did in 45 ?

Two follow-on questions for the group:

Would the Kamikaze's have been a credible threat given Rob's comments on our aircraft?

Given the general level of violence and damage, would we have pursued a negotiated settlement short of unconditional surrender?

DJ

Kamakazies, What Kamakazies, With the control of the air that we would have enforced. There is not much of a REAL chance that the Japanese would have been able to pose for our forces.. And most likely, only a few MIGHT have been able to get airborne before being blown out of the air.

DAGGER-1 "When Science Fails, Brute Force Wins"

Dagger--several points. For one, we enjoyed aerial supremacy over Okinawa, and one out of every three Naval casualties suffered by the USN in WW II were the result of the Kamikazes. Once we got into Japan, we discovered by some estimates over five thousand aircraft capable of hammering the fleet. The aircraft we possessed needed local airfields to fully support the battlefield. We needed to get those quickly and establish a firm presence ashore. I ask that you consider the threat to the fleet based on the Okinawa experience. It was real and justified.

DJ

two words: Littleman and Fatboy

I guess that invading Japan would become U.S.'s Stalingrad. No way they could reinforce that huge scale of operation.

No, I stick with Pak.....they would have used the Oppenheimers.

DJ's assumption is that we did not use nukes...it would have been easy to keep that force supplied, stage from mainland China, get raw materials from the liberated nations nearby (French Indochina and Dutch East Indies) and have weapons of war steam from the US and ETO.

As far as Kamikazes, with the non-stop bombing that could be done on the airfields, factories and fuel stores, they would have been a problem, but not to the ground forces. The naval forces, yes. Ships are big targets.

Rob--some guys do not read the fine print! Regardless, the threat to the fleet was tremendous. Obviously, power projection required the fleet to deploy and sustain the land force. If they were endanger then the success of the troops ashore was at risk in direct proportion to the danger to the fleet. We also were approaching the end of our personnel availability line. The war in Europe ended and we were scheduling the demobilization of divisions and people with points for time overseas. They were digging deep into the personnel reservoir by the end of the war. So, my second point is that I believe we would have settled for something less than total surrender after engaging in combat in the Japanese homelands. In effect, we modified our demands at Potsdam by allowing the Emperor (I believe correctly) to remain as a figure of national prestige and stability. If executed, the invasion and subsequent land operations would have been one bloody mess.

It would have probably been a lot like the Vietnam War as far as the civilian factor goes. And it probably would have made us think twice about even going to fight in Vietnam. I think that there would have been extremely high causalties on each side, with Japan eventually surrendering after the US taking Tokyo. We might of even still had to drop the atomic bombs if the campaign was slow with high casaulties

Mark

No, it would be easier to identify the enemy in Japan than in Vietnam. Remember, in 'Nam some of the Vietnamese were allies. In Japan, all Japanese would be enemy. No problem of who to trust in the local villages. Trust no one.

on the lighter side guys,
if we had to invade japan we would not have tamiya models to play with.

yes we would.its just that the quality would not be as good because they would be under american control.....................lol

Friends--I think we beat this one to death....
thanks
DJ

Good point. You are right it was harder in vietnam because we had allies. I lose

Mark

also keep in mind that japan had exhausted their man power supply

Okay, okay....enough. I get the picture. I was wrong

Mark

Mark---do not taske it too hard. Rob was once wrong, but that was a very, very long time ago.
DJ

Good to know 210cav.... Very good to know!

Mark