Iwo Jima

Since today is the anniversary of Iwo Jima, I'd like to open this up to anyone who wishes to comment or add facts about this battle. From what I have observed and studied, I believe Iwo Jima was the bloodiest battle in the whole Pacific Campaign, even if it didn't have the highest KIA.

 

Iwo Jima was certainly a bloody fight with a higher toll. However I believe that the assault on Betio island at Tarawa produced a higher casualty rate - approximately 1,000 Marines and Navy KIA in the 3 day battle, with total casualties of about 3,400. At that rate, Iwo's approximate 6,000 KIA and 28,000 total casualties over the 36-day battle would have escalated to about 12,000 KIA and over 40,000 total casualties - and this tally of bloodshed doesn't include Japanese losses on either island. Of course, comparing losses from one battle to another is just a pissin' contest - ultimately pointless in the grand scheme of things.

 

Good point about Tarawa. Tarawa was indeed bloody, but it was also short, taking 76 hours, if I'm not mistaken. Iwo Jima lasted for 36 days and that isn't including afterwards when solo Japanese survivors finally surrendered and were killed. In addition even though the Marines suffered fewer KIAs than the Japanese (6,821 vs. approximately 20,000), casualty-wise the US suffered 28,686 casualties vs. the approximate 20,000 Japanese casualties. On a different note I'm wondering if anyone knows the origens of the first two flags that flew over Mount Suribachi. I heard the second and more famous one was taken from a ship sunk at Pearl Harbor. I'm also curious as to what happened to the two after their time in history. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the second flag is in the Marine Corps Museum. I've got a couple more questions like was Raymond Jacobs one of the original flagraisers? Was Sgt. Mike Strank wearing a hat or a helmet when he raised the second flag? My final question is one poised by historian Robert S. Burrell. Was Iwo Jima worth it? Burrell said it wasn't but I say it was. I'm just curious what other people think.

 

Also more medals of honor were awarded at Iwo than at any other battle in Marine Corps history. One of the flag raisers (Bradley) won a Navy Cross for saving a wounded Marine from No-Man's Land during the fight for Suribachi.

 

The first flag was brought ashore by Lt. George Greeley Wells, adjutant of 2/28, having acquired it from the transport Missoula before transferring to an LST. The second flag was obtained from LST 799 on the beach by a corporal nicknamed "Wabbit" who had been ordered to find a flag to replace the first one because Col. Chandler, the battalion commander, didn't want anybody stealing it for a souvenir. Both flags are in the Marine Corps Museum near Quantico, being put on display alternately to minimize their exposure to light. From Rosenthal's photo and Genaust's movie of the second flag raising, it looks like all 6 Marines were wearing helmets - and that's how they're portrayed in de Weldon's memorial in Arlington.

 

What Kuribayashi did was amazing. He made that small island in a dead zone. Allmost most of his decisions were accurate. He did far more of what was expected from him with 20000 ounumbered and ill equipped. Finally as everyone knows the phot is a BIG fraud, it was prepared, though the first flag rising was less espectacular.

:aa_japan:

 

The second photo WAS NOT a fraud and I am curious as to why you think that. What is your source?

 

question, during the air battle wherein the japanese lost 40 zeros out of 80 on the frist engagement, 20 out of 40 on the second, and 11 out of 20 on the third, what were the comparative losses for the carrier-based hellcats?

 

I MEAN ITS NOT A FRAUD BUT ITS NOT NATURAL EITHER TAKE A LOOK AT THIS

Iwo Jima - The Picture

 

Could you be a little more clear in what you meant by not natural? Do you mean the image was cropped?

 

I don't have the stats yet but I can bet you it was way less then the 71 Japanese aircraft you stated.

 

The original photo was cropped by the press to focus in on the men, but the taking of the actual photo was completely unrehersed.

 

Oh, OK, my bad.

 

In Letters From Iwo Jima a Japanese officer states that there were 41 Zekes and 13 Bombers on the Island, but I don't know how reliable this is. I'll have to do more research.

 

I thought Okinawa was bloodiest then Iwo Jima.

But the pacific campaign is less brutal than the Sino-japanese war.

 

Okinawa was bloodier in the fact that more men died. However, the bloodiest battle could be based on more than just casualties. More men died on Iwo Jima per square mile than they did on Okinawa. In addition Iwo Jima was much more savager than Okinawa. Remember, the Japanese classified Iwo Jima as part of japan and they weren't going to let it go without a major fight, more so than any other island. In that sense Iwo Jima could be classified as the bloodiest battle in the Pacific.

 

Yes but Okinawa wa tough too ( with the "cleaning" of individual holes, the kamikazes, the fierce resistance).

 

Again, I'm not saying Okinawa wasn't tough, Okinawa was a bloody battle. In my eyes, however, I see Iwo Jima as the bloodier of the two. It's just my opinion.

 

I find it incredible that modern society remembers Iwo Jima because of the famous photo, and not of the fact that it was the bloodiest battle in Marine Corps History, that more Medals of Honor were awarded during the battle than in any other battle in US history, and that the casualty rate during the first 48 hous outdid Normandy and anywhere else that was landed during WWII.

I'm not saying you're one of these people, but I just find it kind of funny how people can look at that photograph and know what it is, yet then do not know the backround of the actual battle. The recent Iwo Jima films were a huge wakeup to the American public about this.

 

I agree with you. Before I got interested in WWII, when I saw that photograph I thought it was a nice shot and that was it. I never thought about what happened on that island. Now looking at that photograph, I think of a lot more things. One of the first things that race through my mind it it was taken on what I call that miserable spit of land (only because of how bloody it was). I also think of those six men. I don't see just the photo, I see more the whole battle itself.