Amazing Photos of Iwo Jima Circa WWII

[Hostile]

Thanks for sharing the photos Hos. Great stuff.

Ira Hayes - ah yes, great song. I liked Townes Van Zandts version the best.

I didn't know anyone else had a version of it. I don't think Johnny Cash wrote it, but I do not know who did.

 

[burmafrd]

WW1 did have some pretty bad generals, but the terrible fact was that at that particular time the weapons of defense totally overwhelmed the chances of an offense being successful. Until the tank came along, there really was no other way to attack except have a huge artillery barrage and then a mass infrantry assault to try and overwhelm the defense. Where I fault the generals, and the political leaders as well, is that after 1915 at the latest there should have been no big offenses on either side. It had already been shown that without a massive number advantage (which was impossible to get with the relatively short front, allowing either side to man all works well and have reinforcements nearby) no attack would do more then gain a few miles at most. The Allied blockade on Germany did gradually starve them, so on the allied side there was no real reason to attack. Germany had reason to attack. The allied political leaders, Clemencaue and Lloyd George, were a real pair of SOBs who cared nothing about killing millions of their own soldiers.

Unlike WW2, where there was a clear and absolute need to defeat Hitler, there was no good reason for WW1 except the rivalry between the UK and Germany, and the byzantine mutual defense treaties that allowed the assasination of a minor Balkan prince to escalate to the most terrible war in human history up to that point.

 

[Sarge]

I didn't know anyone else had a version of it. I don't think Johnny Cash wrote it, but I do not know who did.

There are many many versions of it. Peter Lafarge wrote it. It has been covered by Pete Seeger, Cash, Bob Dylan and a zillion others.

I am a HUGE Townes Van Zandt fan, so I like his version the best. TVZ is the best lyricist ever IMO but that's getting off topic.

 

[MetalHead]

After reading this thread I broke down and rented Flags of our Fathers...
Good movie.
I don't know how much they Hollywood-ized it,but still,the final scene made me feel a trickle down my right cheek...it was a tear.

 

[arglebargle]

Now you can rent Letters from Iwo Jima, and see the opposite side. Clint Eastwood is a very brave director. Good one too, and apparantly he was fascinated with the stories of Iwo Jima. Enough that he did two films back to back, based on the battle.

 

[arglebargle]

WW1 did have some pretty bad generals, but the terrible fact was that at that particular time the weapons of defense totally overwhelmed the chances of an offense being successful. Until the tank came along, there really was no other way to attack except have a huge artillery barrage and then a mass infrantry assault to try and overwhelm the defense. Where I fault the generals, and the political leaders as well, is that after 1915 at the latest there should have been no big offenses on either side. It had already been shown that without a massive number advantage (which was impossible to get with the relatively short front, allowing either side to man all works well and have reinforcements nearby) no attack would do more then gain a few miles at most. The Allied blockade on Germany did gradually starve them, so on the allied side there was no real reason to attack. Germany had reason to attack. The allied political leaders, Clemencaue and Lloyd George, were a real pair of SOBs who cared nothing about killing millions of their own soldiers.

Unlike WW2, where there was a clear and absolute need to defeat Hitler, there was no good reason for WW1 except the rivalry between the UK and Germany, and the byzantine mutual defense treaties that allowed the assasination of a minor Balkan prince to escalate to the most terrible war in human history up to that point.

Secret treaties do not dissuade in advance.

There were some interesting events and campaigns on the minor fronts (East Africa, Middle East, Balkans, Siberia, etc) that did not fall into the static front, but they were less important (and less bloody) than the Western European stalemate.

 

[burmafrd]

actually none of the treaties were really secret. Every government pretty much knew about them. What happened was that first they did not believe it would reach the level it did, then they thought it would be over in one year at most, and then when the whole horror finally set in no one would admit their mistakes and they prefferred that millions die instead.

 

[arglebargle]

I recall that after the first campaigns in 1914, everyone ran out of ammunition, they were so unprepared. There was a lull for months as the various powers had to make enough bullets to actually shoot their guns.

It is kind of frightening to see how all the events snowballed into mass warfare. And how poorly it was handled.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

I recall that after the first campaigns in 1914, everyone ran out of ammunition, they were so unprepared. There was a lull for months as the various powers had to make enough bullets to actually shoot their guns.

It is kind of frightening to see how all the events snowballed into mass warfare. And how poorly it was handled.

There's a quote I ran across somewhere attributed to one of the French generals in 1914 that the only artillery shells that they had available for an upcoming bombardment were still in America.

There was an episode on the Military Channel one night about 2 or 3 years ago that showed the German infantry and artillery hard points in the Ardenne, IIRC. Had they chose to retreat to the forest, they could have bled the combined Allied forces for quite some time while they attempted to capture those points. Maneuver warfare took it's first modern baby steps in WW 1.

It's truly amazing to see how the art of warfare has changed so drastically in the last 100 years. The dread naughts are a thing of the past and cargo supplies take off from Travis AFB to land anywhere in the world we can put down a C5 or drop in on parachuted skids. BluFor's have pushed back the fog of war in ways that WW1 generals could not have imagined in their absolute wildest dreams.

 

[burmafrd]

its a misnomer to say maneuver warfare is recent. Lee's campaigns, Wellington's campaigns, I could go on but maneuver warfare has been around as long as warfare. Hannibal and Alexander were renowned for out maneuvering their opponents. In the early months of WW1 there was nothing different from previous wars except the scale. What changed was when everyone went to the trenches. THAT was where it all went off the rails. At that point there was no possibility of maneuver until you broke through the front lines, which grew to 20 miles in thickness at places. With the ability of artillery to be massed, plus the fact that the shells were much larger and much more lethal, added to the thousands of MGs, which could all be focused on an area confined by barb wire and trenches, and that is where you get the mass casualties. And mainly due to political pressure, each side attacked again and again with the same results.

 

[arglebargle]

.... And mainly due to political pressure, each side attacked again and again with the same results.

Almost the definition of insanity.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

its a misnomer to say maneuver warfare is recent. Lee's campaigns, Wellington's campaigns, I could go on but maneuver warfare has been around as long as warfare. Hannibal and Alexander were renowned for out maneuvering their opponents. In the early months of WW1 there was nothing different from previous wars except the scale. What changed was when everyone went to the trenches. THAT was where it all went off the rails. At that point there was no possibility of maneuver until you broke through the front lines, which grew to 20 miles in thickness at places. With the ability of artillery to be massed, plus the fact that the shells were much larger and much more lethal, added to the thousands of MGs, which could all be focused on an area confined by barb wire and trenches, and that is where you get the mass casualties. And mainly due to political pressure, each side attacked again and again with the same results.

I thought I had "Mechanized" as the first word in the last sentence of the second paragraph. Someone it got deleted when I was did an edit before posting. I guess with the capital M in there, I skimmed to quickly.

I do agree in totality with your assessment that maneuvering has been in warfare since the earliest days when a cave man had sense enough to run up behind his enemy and knock him on the head. I meant to infer that WW 1 was the starting point at which modern armies were employing mechanized infantry and such over horse drawn artillery in theatre wide operations. Even still Germany's blitz krieg in WW 2 still encountered opposing forces using horses to draw "modern" artillery pieces across the field of battle.

Now we can drive 40 kilometers overland, behind enemy lines, in the dark, and attack at first light to secure an airfield to set up a forward operating base and supply point. At least that's what one unit in Iraq did in the two books I polished off. And it's not just the fact we can do it, but that we can do it and the entire command structure can view the individual vehicle's advancing across the terrain, delayed only by 30 seconds of real time.

 

[arglebargle]

Though I must point out that a very large percentage of the German artillery was still horse drawn. They did have mechanized infantry and artillery, and used it well. But they also had bicycle troops.

At the beginning of the invasion of Poland, the German armor was not appreciably superior to the Poles. I think something like half the German armor were versions of the fairly terrible Panzer I, designed to be a training vehicle. German superiorty came from advanced radio communications, and experianced, competent junior officers and NCOs. And a bit of doctrine.

Was reading up on the mobility of armies, and there was this one claim that on extended campaigns, the fastest armies in history (including today) were the Romans for infantry and the Mongols for a cavalry force.

Of course when we do it now, we can carry more and bigger stuffs! And I hear the Mongol air force was terrible! Nothing to match a P51. Nothing but used Chinese kites in fact.

 

[burmafrd]

Actually the 24th Mech in its move to the Euphrates River in Feb 91 broke the record of a British unit in armored cars in Palestine of WW1 for most miles covered in one day by a military unit while attacking an enemy.

In early WW2 its arguable that the Germans had the worst tanks as regards gun size and armor of anyone that fought. BUT all their tanks had radios (very rare for anyone at that time) and they had already war gamed and had done training events trying out their tactics. Their tactics were not perfect and neither were their commanders. BUT they started out way ahead in those areas which was why they kicked large amounts of hiney early in the war.

 

[Concord]

is there any pictures of the plane that dropped the 1st Atomic bomb or of the bomb itself?

They already showed you the Enola Gay.

Here's who dropped the Nagasaki Bomb.

Bockscar

Name: Fat Man
Type: Plutonium fission
Weight: 10,000lb (4535 kg)
Length: 10 ft, 8 in (3.25 m)
Diameter: 5 ft (1.52 m)
Explosive Yield: 21,000 tons of TNT

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Sunday night, Band Brothers Pacific Version starts.

 

[Concord]

Sunday night, Band Brothers Pacific Version starts.

Can't wait.

 

[Concord]

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Sunday night, Band Brothers Pacific Version starts.

What time and channel?

 

[Concord]

What time and channel?

HBO 9pm.