04-04-2005 21:27									#31
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by GePap quote: Didn't the Japanese Strike the Phillipinnes at almost the exact same time as Pearl Harbor? Besides, what would strikes vs Formosa have done? Gotten the bombers shot up in the air, then to come back to decimated bases?

Dont have the reference handy, but apparently there was some time between the opening at Pearl and the arrival of Japanese aircraft at PI. MacArthur dithered.

What it would have accomplished would have been at least SOME damage to the Taiwain airfields and facilities and any AC currently on the ground in Taiwan. That was the whole point of HAVING large numbers of US AC in the PI. At that point it was use em and lose em, or just lose em. No point in just losing em.

If you REALLY dont think they could have done anything, than the mistake was sending them to the PI at all (and they were moving AC into PI all through '41) Better to keep them back, and have more AC left to use after PI falls.

	04-04-2005 21:32									#32
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

from a post at Soc.history.what-if

"As for what MacArthur did do, he defintely did not put his B-17s in the air after getting the news of Pearl Harbor, After over half of his force was destroyed on the ground, he certainly did, but that was too late.
MacArthur did not manage the defense of the Phillipines well, and his mismanagement of aerial forces is particularly significant. Half the Japanese air strength in Taiwan could not operate south of Baguio, which
was 100 miles north of Clark field. The 86 Zeros which escorted the 108 bombers of the Navy's 11th. Air Fleet were only able to reach Manila by reducing engine revolutions: they had no fuel reserves left for dogfights.
If MacArthur had not let his forces be caught on the ground (and if he had sent them south, out of the range of the majority of Japanese aircraft) nine hours after recieving the news of Pearl Harbor, the Japanese would
have had a far more difficult time. Even assuming that MacArthur did not disperse forces south, a raid on the enemy airfields in Taiwan with his B-17s (which could have been launched not long after getting the news of
Pearl Harbor) would have made it far harder for the Japanese to try for air superiority over the Phillipines. MacArthur screwed up, which was, for the most part, the story of his career. Good PR and his victory at
Inchon have served to erase all the other failures, ****-ups, and insubordinations he was involved in. MacArthur deserved to get the treatment that was given to Kimmel, and it was only due to his PR (and
political connections to the Republican Party) that he avoided it. "

	04-04-2005 21:32									#33
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

MacArthur had plenty of warning that the Japanese were on the way because they were delayed by fog he and overruled General Brereton (who wanted to bomb Taiwan) thus resulting in the planes being destroyed on the ground, its much much much easier to destroy a plane if its not flying around and capable of fighting back.

And as far as Inchon goes, MacArthur was planning on sending the very FIRST American troops to arrive in Korea straight at Inchon, instead of trying to stabilize the Pusan Perimiter first. Thankfully he was overruled...

Idiot.

Last edited by Bosh on 04-04-2005 at 21:42

	05-04-2005 05:16									#34
	Support Apolyton

quote: Because they were essentially civilian, not military targets.

I'm pretty sure the largest urban area in Japan had some military targets in it.

	05-04-2005 06:00									#35
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove What Eisenhower grasped didn't matter. The partitioning of Germany was decided upon months before at Yalta by the politicians. In fact Germany was originally divided into 4 zones, one for each of the major allied powers. There wasn't a definite plan to re-assemble Germany either. The French, British, and Americans created the FRG only after the Soviets declared their zone to be a sovreign nation.

That's quite true - but the battlefield situation created an opportunity which was not seized. Instead US forces were diverted South to capture the non existent "Alpine redoubt".

	05-04-2005 06:12									#36
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by GePap Didn't the Japanese Strike the Phillipinnes at almost the exact same time as Pearl Harbor? Besides, what would strikes vs Formosa have done? Gotten the bombers shot up in the air, then to come back to decimated bases? .

The Japanese couldn't hit the Phillipines at the same time as Pearl Harbor because of the time difference, it was 3 AM in the Phillipines when Pearl Harbor was being bombed. The Japanese had no experience with night bombing and didn't seem to be inclined towards acquiring any throughout the war. They did attempt to get their forces in the air at daybreak, but were hampered by fog. The bombing mission didn't get started until 8 AM. MacArthur ordered his fighters into the air at the crack of dawn, with the result that they began to run out of fuel as noon approached, which as fate would have it was the time that Japanese bombers struck the main airbases in the Phillipines.

MacArthur decided to not bomb the Japanese on December 8 because he had no reconnaissance of Japanese air and naval facilities on Taiwan. Without time to prepare for the mission odds were against his bombers finding a suitable target.

	05-04-2005 06:38									#37
	Got spare money?

Why are we all beating up on MacArthur? I thought he was a brilliant general, the best of the US, a stellar career. His "Pinch Hit" at Inchon was a stroke of genius. The way he rebuilt Japan as a peaceful parliamentary democracy with a strong market economy was masterful. He is revered in Asia.

He towered over the other US generals. I like the way he summed up Eisenhower, "the best clerk I ever had"

	05-04-2005 08:19									#38
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse Why are we all beating up on MacArthur? I thought he was a brilliant general, the best of the US, a stellar career. His "Pinch Hit" at Inchon was a stroke of genius. The way he rebuilt Japan as a peaceful parliamentary democracy with a strong market economy was masterful. He is revered in Asia. He towered over the other US generals. I like the way he summed up Eisenhower, "the best clerk I ever had"

Well first off he sent tanks to disperse a peaceful demonstration of US WWI veterans killing and wounding wounding hundreds (resulting in the miscarriage of a pregnant veteran's wife), in blatant violation of law that disallows federal troups from acting in a law enforement capacity.

He also was part of the large-scale American ****-up that lead to the UN forces hitting the Yalu completely unprepared for the Chinese invertervention when the Chinese had repeatedly warned the Americans that they would intervene if the Americans hit the Yalu through a number of channels.

After this he called for nuking China (as in dropping up to 50 nuclear bombs all over the country), which would have resulted in a very nasty WW III. Which would have been somewhat unforturnate.

Also, he shouldn't have be given any real credit for the Incheon landing, since as I said before his original plan was to send the very first American troops that hit Korea at Inchon (the unprepared and generally crappy Japan occupation forces) instead of sending them to shore up the Pusan Perimeter, which would have resulted in the fall of Busan and the liquidation of the SKorean government in all likelyhood. The Inchon Landing only worked out because he was overruled and had to dely the Inchon Landing until there were sufficient troops to hold the Pusan Perimiter and do the landing.

	05-04-2005 08:54									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse Why are we all beating up on MacArthur? I thought he was a brilliant general, the best of the US, a stellar career. His "Pinch Hit" at Inchon was a stroke of genius. The way he rebuilt Japan as a peaceful parliamentary democracy with a strong market economy was masterful. He is revered in Asia.

I'm not beating up on him, I was answering a question about when the Japanese first bombed the Phillipines, and why MacArthur didn't bomb the airbases on Taiwan first.

	05-04-2005 09:00									#40
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I was thinking more of Boshko....as you can see

	05-04-2005 09:03									#41
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Also, as has been discussed, his defense of the Philippines was faulty.

More importantly, in '44, he pushed for and recieved significant resources to retake the Philippines. This was, relative to the general allied Pacific effort, unproductive. While the battle of Leyte Gulf did significantly hurt the remaining Japanese surface fleet, that fleet was basically immaterial, as the naval engagements around Okinawa show. (Even that late in the war, the Japanese still hadn't grasped the destructive power of naval aviation.) The allied campaign in the central pacific was adequite at advancing ground bases for bombers, and allowing the US to strike at the Home Islands themselves. Basically, the recapture of the Philippines was a PR move, to allow MacAurthur to return as he said he was, and to replace the image of his ignominious retreat with that of his triumphal return.

	05-04-2005 09:04									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by GePap Also, the USSR was NOT planning to invade Germany. I don't know where people get this.

Indeed, my understanding is that the Russian Army was rendered almost useless as a result of Stalin's purges of the general staff.

I even heard a theory that Hilter induced those purges by leaking disinformation that Russia's generals were planning a coup. This disinformation had the expected reaction by the paranoid Stalin.

	05-04-2005 09:29									#43
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by GePap Didn't the Japanese Strike the Phillipinnes at almost the exact same time as Pearl Harbor? Besides, what would strikes vs Formosa have done? Gotten the bombers shot up in the air, then to come back to decimated bases? On Berlin- the Germans would have gladly surrendered to the western allies, but politically it would have been inpractical, and in the end only accerbated tensions between the western allies and the USSR immidiately. Given that the Soviets had fought the vast bulk of the land war vs. the Nazi's, they saw Berlin as their prize and their alone- who knows how they might have reacted had tyhe western allies sought to deny them that prize. Also, the USSR was NOT planning to invade Germany. I don't know where people get this.

About 9 Dec their time or about 24 to 36 hours after P.H. our time.

	05-04-2005 11:01									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Admiral Also, as has been discussed, his defense of the Philippines was faulty. More importantly, in '44, he pushed for and recieved significant resources to retake the Philippines. This was, relative to the general allied Pacific effort, unproductive. While the battle of Leyte Gulf did significantly hurt the remaining Japanese surface fleet, that fleet was basically immaterial, as the naval engagements around Okinawa show. (Even that late in the war, the Japanese still hadn't grasped the destructive power of naval aviation.) The allied campaign in the central pacific was adequite at advancing ground bases for bombers, and allowing the US to strike at the Home Islands themselves. Basically, the recapture of the Philippines was a PR move, to allow MacAurthur to return as he said he was, and to replace the image of his ignominious retreat with that of his triumphal return.

This is all hidnsight driven. If you have a look at a map of East Asia the strategic significance of the Philippines becomes very clear. By taking it Japan's forces in SEA were cut off from mainland Japan, as were the sea lanes for strategic resources like oil and rubber. Now, you can say the Navy and air force could have achieved this without the Philippines and there is some truth in that too but this was not known at the time. Thats what I mean by hindsight.

	05-04-2005 12:54									#45
	Suffering from ads?

There is also the morale factor consider, since MacArthur and his crew got whooped there the first time, taking it back was a big deal.

Sorta like the opposite of what happened at Stalingrad for the Nazis except not as big of a scale.

	05-04-2005 13:05									#46
	Remove this text

That's true but the Philippine operation was not launched to salvage Macarthur's reputation. Roosevelt and the Joint Chiefs would never have sanctioned a prestige operation like that.

The Philippines were also going to be the major base for invasion operations against Japan and elsewhere. You couldn't base a fullscale invasion of Japan out of Okinawa and Iwo Jima. There's a reason why the US hung onto Clarke Field and Subic Bay for so long after the war, they were very high value strategic assets.

	05-04-2005 14:58									#47
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

1. market garden (the paratroopers should all have been send after the beginning of the ground war)

2. the battle for caen...i still believe this could have been done without that many casaulties...

3. all the strategic bombing missions against civil targets...(should have been used to take out the tiger and panzer factories for example)

	05-04-2005 15:40									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Boshko MacArthur had plenty of warning that the Japanese were on the way because they were delayed by fog he and overruled General Brereton (who wanted to bomb Taiwan) thus resulting in the planes being destroyed on the ground, its much much much easier to destroy a plane if its not flying around and capable of fighting back.

I find these arguments unconvincing. Events were very confused in the hours after Pearl Harbor if Macarthur had attacked Taiwan that could have been a major escalation of the fighting at a time when the state of war wasn't clear. Also you can't keep planes in the air indefinitely. Macarthur had no idea when the Japanese would attack or how - moving the planes South would have been useless against carrier based Japanese aircraft.

quote: And as far as Inchon goes, MacArthur was planning on sending the very FIRST American troops to arrive in Korea straight at Inchon, instead of trying to stabilize the Pusan Perimiter first. Thankfully he was overruled... Idiot.

Well the Busan perimeter was saved by the Inchon landing so this is a bit of a circular argument.

	05-04-2005 15:50									#49
	Tired of ads?

quote: the state of war wasn't clear.

How the hell was the state of war unclear?? The least he could've done is tried to move the planes south out of Japanese bomber range rather than leaving them there like sitting ducks.

quote: Well the Busan perimeter was saved by the Inchon landing so this is a bit of a circular argument.

Well the first units that America sent over into Korea were elements of the 8th Army, (who'd gotten soft from nice cushy occupation duty in Japan) which got smacked around pretty badly during the first weeks of US involvement in the war and were generally disorganized and ineffective. If those troops were sent into Inchon right in the beginning it would've been a fiasco.

	05-04-2005 16:18									#50
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Boshko How the hell was the state of war unclear?? The least he could've done is tried to move the planes south out of Japanese bomber range rather than leaving them there like sitting ducks.

iirc, he wanted the planes forward to interdict anticipated Japanese landings on Luzon. The Taiwan mission wasn't the main game in Macarthur's opinion. I also seem to recall that bad luck played a role in the US planes getting caught on the ground.

quote: Well the first units that America sent over into Korea were elements of the 8th Army, (who'd gotten soft from nice cushy occupation duty in Japan) which got smacked around pretty badly during the first weeks of US involvement in the war and were generally disorganized and ineffective. If those troops were sent into Inchon right in the beginning it would've been a fiasco.

Huh? again iirc, Macarthur used the Marines to spearhead Inchon and that was always the plan. As for the 8th army, his view was they should back up the landing and there wasn't much point putting further troops into the Busan pocket. He did so reluctantly for this reason. That makes perfect sense to me.

	05-04-2005 16:18									#51
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten quote: Because they were essentially civilian, not military targets. I'm pretty sure the largest urban area in Japan had some military targets in it.

Nah. The peace loving Japanese had all their industry in Taiwan and Manchukuo, clearly.

All those supposedly industrial areas in Tokyo-Yokohama, Osaka et cetera, were in fact the equivalent of Potemkin villages to lure the American bombers away from the vital mainland Asian military-industrial complex.

All they contained were tea houses, a few tanneries staffed by disposable Koreans and some 'comfort' houses.

	05-04-2005 16:24									#52
	Put an end to popups!

you can agree or disagree with mcarthur´s actions during WWII and korea but what i cant believe is that he wanted to use more than 50 nukes on china because of there intervention of an attack on ally.

	05-04-2005 16:25									#53
	Support Apolyton

Eisenhower's refusal to take Patton's advice regarding attacking the shoulders of "the bulge" during the battle of the same name rather than pushing the penetration back step by step from it's deepest point. This cost large numbers of relatively experienced infantry casualties while allowing the Germans to remove most of their troops and much of their equipment intact. The casualty ratio could / should have been several times better than it was.

The failure to design and build in numbers a decent medium or heavy tank in the latter stages of the war (Anglo-Americans only).

The failure to ensure that enough quality personnel were available to provide competent small unit leaders for the Army (U.S.). Also, the failure to plan for replacements for the line divisions in Europe, and the failure to develop methods for training and integrating the replacements that were received.

The submarine torpedo fiasco of the early war period. (U.S.)

	05-04-2005 16:33									#54
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: The failure to design and build in numbers a decent medium or heavy tank in the latter stages of the war (Anglo-Americans only).

cant agree with that the british and the US had a totally different approach to tank building then the germans or the russians....yes one on one the german tank won (certainly if the allied tank still had a to small of a gun which was a big mistake) but the sherman tank was perfect because the could build a lot very fast (bigger tank takes more time) and it was fast...i believe most allied tanks werent build to take on enemy tanks they had special tanks for that..the m-18 and so on...the allied tank of WWII wasnt a main-battle tank because they didnt want one

	06-04-2005 08:01									#55
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by DeathByTheSword quote: The failure to design and build in numbers a decent medium or heavy tank in the latter stages of the war (Anglo-Americans only). cant agree with that the british and the US had a totally different approach to tank building then the germans or the russians....yes one on one the german tank won (certainly if the allied tank still had a to small of a gun which was a big mistake) but the sherman tank was perfect because the could build a lot very fast (bigger tank takes more time) and it was fast...i believe most allied tanks werent build to take on enemy tanks they had special tanks for that..the m-18 and so on...the allied tank of WWII wasnt a main-battle tank because they didnt want one

At the end of the war, Feb., March, April, and May the US sent in the M26 Pershing with a 90mm gun and the few battle it was in they won.

	06-04-2005 08:43									#56
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Boshko 7. MacArthur's failure to purge the Japanese government of fascist scum post-war.

Including Hirohito

Though I don't think that's entirely his decision. The US wanted to keep the bastards around to "contain" communism.

	06-04-2005 08:45									#57
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Boshko MacArthur had plenty of warning that the Japanese were on the way because they were delayed by fog he and overruled General Brereton (who wanted to bomb Taiwan) thus resulting in the planes being destroyed on the ground, its much much much easier to destroy a plane if its not flying around and capable of fighting back.

How would he have known about the fog? Taiwan is more than 300 miles north of Luzon. I don't think the Japanese were sending out weather reports to the allies. Also consider that to the allies, who had practiced night and foul weather bombing a little fog wouldn't have been a problem. The Japanese however wanted to be able to form up their squadrons as they climbed to cruising altitiude rather than climb above the clouds and circle as they manuevered into formation. Saving a little time helped to extend the range of theri fighters.

MacArthur's mistake on December 8 was to order his entire fighter compliment into the air and keep them there as long as possible. After 5 hours in the air they had to refuel. As fate would have it that was right about then time that Japanese squadrons began to reach US airbases. What MacArthur could have done was to bring the fighters down in rotations, so only a fraction would be on the ground refueling at any time.

	06-04-2005 08:48									#58
	Remove this text

quote: Though I don't think that's entirely his decision. The US wanted to keep the bastards around to "contain" communism.

Good call, too. Japanese support made fighting the commie Koreans and Chinese a lot easier.

	06-04-2005 08:52									#59
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by GePap Also, the USSR was NOT planning to invade Germany. I don't know where people get this.

That's no other explanation for the deployment of the troops near the border.

	06-04-2005 08:53									#60
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by DeathByTheSword quote: The failure to design and build in numbers a decent medium or heavy tank in the latter stages of the war (Anglo-Americans only). cant agree with that the british and the US had a totally different approach to tank building then the germans or the russians....yes one on one the german tank won (certainly if the allied tank still had a to small of a gun which was a big mistake) but the sherman tank was perfect because the could build a lot very fast (bigger tank takes more time) and it was fast...i believe most allied tanks werent build to take on enemy tanks they had special tanks for that..the m-18 and so on...the allied tank of WWII wasnt a main-battle tank because they didnt want one

The Sherman was designed to counter the German Pzkpw IV, the German's best tank in 1941 when the Sherman was designed. It was well suited for that purpose. By the time that US forces began encountering Panther and Tiger tanks in Italy it was too late to change production in time for the Normandy invasion. Plans to build the Pershing were begun however. Perhaps if American observers had correctly unbderstood what was going on in Russia they might have guessed that the Germans would want to introduce a larger, better armored, better gunned tank in order to match the Russian tanks, but it seemed like the Germans were doing well with what they had in 1942, so western military officials made no attempt to anticipate the later German tanks. As it turned out the best tanks in WW2 were the P-48 and P-51 anyway.