Talk:Battle of Iwo Jima

Raising the flag image

The uploaded files of AP are currently being proposed for deletion but this one is one of two specifically allowed in a 2005 letter: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Marked-ap-letter.jpg AP can revoke other images but the two images mentioned in the letter are specifically allowed. S_peakF_ree (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

First attack on the 'home islands' - depends, I guess ....

Saipan was considered Japanese home-territory - a colony - for a long time before WW2. Iwo Jima is virtually as far away from Kyushu as Saipan is . . . I would say Okinawa was the first 'true' home islands battle. From what I've read, Saipan was no less considered Japanese than Iwo Jima was at that time by the Empire. Should the lede be adjusted? HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

It wasn't the first attack on the home islands if you include air attacks. That would be the Doolittle Raid. But since Iwo Jima was governed as part of the Tokyo metropolitan area by the Japanese, whereas Saipan was a colony, the case can be made that Iwo Jima was the first attack on the home islands.

Not sure I buy that description, but at least it's plausible. --Yaush (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

3/3 Volunteers Ashore As Stretcher Bearers

  My father was with 3/3/3 at Iwo Jima.(ref) CPL Lee R.(aka: Leroy) WILSON was a Demolitions Expert with A Special Weapons Platoon. I don't remember the Company, but I do know that members of the 3/3 were allowed to go ashore as VOLUNTEERS ONLY after @8-18 days, as stretcher bearers. My father also helped blow some of the caves, and one of his memories was the FIRST FLAG RAISED, overtaking and Defending the air strip so the Sea Bees could fix it, and the first plane that landed. My father died in May 1983 before I could get him back to Iwo Jima to help try to identify some of the ares where he dropped satchel charges into the mouth of the caves. When he helped take troops back to the beach, he also helped transport some to the ship, and the sharks were in such a feeding frenzy, frothing the water around the hospital ship as they took the wounded out to the ship, and Hospital Corpsmen were dumping body parts overboard from the surgical teams. He joined 3/3 at Guadalcanal; was drafted into the US Marine Reserves in 1943 from the Joplin, MO/Baxter Springs,KS/Picher,OK area. He was born in Rose,OK. His combat ribbons had two stars for Bouganville, Guam, and Iwo Jima. He returned to Guam after Iwo for awhile, then was discharged at Mare Island, CA. 75.205.236.128 (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)Ron Wilson SGT/USMC/1968-'74/1982-'85.75.205.236.128 (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Use of naval fire support?

There is one thing I don't understand about this battle. It's possible the difficulties of initial landing were not anticipated. However, the account of battle says that the losses were high on US side were high *throughout*. That's strange. US forces had huge naval guns of the navy at their disposal: 10", 12", 14", etc (not to mention lots and lots of 5" secondaries). The shells from these babies dig craters several *meters* deep! And at the time of WWII, coordinated artillery fire support wasn't anything new - it was well developed in WWI. For me as a layman it is not obvious why US troops did not, say, feign attack on Japanese lane forcing Japanese to come out from caves, then pull back and call in artillery barrage. Repeat as needed.

Having enemy guns and mortar teams on Mount Surabachi firing for hours on US troops looks particularly ridiculous. US Navy had no spotters with binoculars? No radios to talk to people under fire and ask where the enemy is? And hitting a target on a mountain slope from a 12" naval gun should not be hard: (1) you do not need a direct hit, and (2) no pressure: if you miss, you can try again as many times as you want.

I must be missing something - I find it hard to believe that I am more clever than guys actually fighting there... for some reason, they couldn't do that. What that reason was?

It sounds like coordinating artillery with infantry looks pretty easy from your armchair. --Yaush (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Did I say "those stupid soldiers, how they didn't figure it out?" Hell no. I admit that it's most likely me who is ignorant. However, this is Wikipedia. People come here exactly for the purpose of stopping being ignorant. I would like to know more about naval fire support on Iwo Jima (or lack thereof). You have problem with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.80.244.172 (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Header

Shouldn't the flag image be the header? It is the most recognized one... --Sam 04:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Aftermath Needs better contextual understanding

"To put that into context," follows with casualty figures from battles of similar duration, but does nothing to actually contextualize the battle of Iwo Jima. This battle was fought on an extremely small island, with the Japanese having no possible method of retreat. I can see how the Aftermath section, as currently written, could be interpreted as belittling the carnage there. More significant statistics would relate to ratio of casualties per land area and ratio of KIA to total casualties. I would also suggest that the leading phrase should be restated as follows: "To put this battle into statistical context..." That way, the reader understands we are talking about quantitative, not qualitative, comparisons.Jeffersonlinux (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)