|
Post by batteryboy on Aug 14, 2016 12:15:22 GMT 8
But Rabaul and Truk although not invaded, were bombed repeatedly so as to lessen their capability to support the outpost garrisons and hamper Japanese shipping operations, maintenance and re-supply. It would be costly to invade both as joeconner53 has pointed out. The Japanese have built both them a "fortresses" that can really withstand a long siege but still the US paid attention to it.
|
|
|
Post by fots2 on Aug 14, 2016 23:57:28 GMT 8
It is the weekend so I have some time to catch up. Great discussion here gents! cbuehler was asking about the terrain in the area of the Japanese landings and okla, whose memory is still as sharp as ever, mentioned a trip report with photos of the area north of Kindley Field. Here is a link to it: Link to "North of Kindley" Trip ReportRelated to this is a Trip Report showing one of Lt. Lawrence’s gun positions which is further east of Kindley field. Both reports show you the coastline and terrain there. Link to “Lt. Lawrence” Trip ReportHave a good weekend.
|
|
|
Post by cbuehler on Aug 15, 2016 9:42:16 GMT 8
This is all bringing up questions in mind that I never thought of before. I still see no obvious place for landing the tanks, although time and vegetation may be obscuring things. I can only surmise that landing them was not without difficulty given what we know about the beach and shoreline areas. If what Gen. Wainright said about the tanks being as a decisive factor, why were they allowed to land? Again, were these tanks totally unobserved? There were guns available which could possibly have dealt with them, or even homemade devices such as Molotov cocktails could have been employed. We keep coming up with excuses due to the circumstances for the failure to stop the invasion, excuses which could likewise be applied elsewhere. We also know that captured US tanks from the 194th Tank Bn. were employed (was it one or two?). There appears to be about a dozen more of these tanks (along with other US vehicles and equipment ) that can be seen in the contemporary Japanese movie Dawn of Freedom. Why were these tanks ever allowed to fall into the hands of the Japanese? Perhaps there is merit to some of the 4th Marines sentiments.
CB
|
|
|
Post by batteryboy on Aug 15, 2016 10:34:47 GMT 8
Conrad, the two M3 tanks even had to haul up the late Type 97 Chi Ha that was stuck. so if that happened, the tanks were not really a factor at all. And if every they were, the defenders could stop them with the weapons that they have.
|
|
|
Post by joeconnor53 on Aug 15, 2016 11:26:27 GMT 8
The tanks were a major factor. Wainwright feared what a Japanese tank could do if it reached Malinta Tunnel. What did he have to stop them? I'll take Wainwright at his word because he was a honorable man and his memoirs were pretty candid.
The best account of the captured American tank on Corregidor is John Gordon's Fighting for MacArthur: The Navy and Marine Corps' Desperate Defense of the Philippines. Without the captured U.S. tank, it sounds as if the Japanese tanks would never have gotten into action on Corregidor. It would be interesting to know where the tanks landed and if it was in the same spot as the infantry landings. The pictures posted above are fascinating, but it's tough to picture the terrain as it was on 5/5/42.
As for how the tanks were captured, I've been trying to figure that out myself. Was it during the retreat from Lingayen to Bataan or after Bataan fell? Ernest B. Miller, a Bataan tanker, wrote a book called Bataan Uncensored shortly after the war. It's a fascinating account of what the tanks did in the Philippine campaign, but it doesn't tell about how this tank was captured. Interestingly, Miller goes out of his way to describe how his outfit destroyed its disabled tanks. Miller pulls no punches about the screw-ups he saw and believes the tanks were never used properly. He comes across as bitter, but everyone in that campaign earned the right to be bitter.
|
|
|
Post by fortman on Aug 15, 2016 16:20:52 GMT 8
Gents, this has turned out to be a very interesting thread. Regarding civilians at the harbor defenses Morton, Table 11 of The Fall of the Philippines, gives their number as 2082, mainly Filipinos, out of a total of 14728 people; a sizeble number to feed and protect. In connection with spying, I was surprised to learn from "MI6 The History of the Secret Intelligence Service 1909 - 1949", by Keith Jeffery, that SIS's "Man in China", Nathaniel Steptoe,tried to get information on Manila's harbor defenses. In 1928 he sent a signal to London proposing paying $2000 to an American naval rating stationed in the Philippines 'to supply detailed information on Corregidor defences'. Whetehr this was approved is not mentioned. fortman ______________ Let me add something to Fortman's mention of pre-war spying on and about Corregidor, and apologise at the same time for the thread diversion. A story was uncovered by one of my early website correspondents, and it can be found on a page I created, Scott Harrison's Espionage Page. At the time, I didn't know Mr. Harrison's background, and it was only when he formally retired was it announced that he had been, in truth, the CIA's former Chief of Station in Manila. (Mr. Harrison died in 2012, in Manila, aged 66.) Even more extraordinary, I was contacted later by a very kind and learned gentleman of the Romero family (of the very same Rufo Caingat Romero affair) which had stayed in Manila where Romero's family became further caught up in extraordinary experiences, worthy of a Herman Wouk novel. I used to link to Mr. Romero's website, but along the way it has disappeared. Fortunately before it did I got his permission to echo it, and so I can now direct you to further fascinating reading at Caught in The Battle of Manila.
Here's something too good to ignore: Before the war several Japanese spies were arrested and prosecuted, including: former naval officer John Semer Farnsworth (1933 – 37) who compromised the gunnery capabilities of every US ship; Otto and Friedel Kuehn, living in Honolulu, who provided intelligence on Pearl Harbor from 1936 – 1941; U.S. Army Captain Rufo Caingat Romero who was arrested in October 1940 and subsequently convicted of attempting to sell for $25,000 ($291,000 in 1999 dollars) classified maps of Bataan and Corregidor to an individual with Japanese intelligence connections (Romero was a Japanese agent from 1939 to 1940 and was sentenced to 15 years in a federal penitentiary); and Harry Thomas Thompson, a former US Navy yeoman spied for Japan in 1934– 35. Thompson was arrested in March 1936, convicted and sentenced to 15 years. By 1941 the Japanese had compiled a 200-page guidebook on the US Navy. Source: Espionage Against America by David Major and Peter C. Oleson, accessed on 15 August 2016 at www.afio.com/publications/MAJOR%20OLESON%20Espionage%20Against%20America%20DRAFT2%202015Aug31.pdf
Do you realize that the Corregidor 1936 Map which we use for study purposes is probably the same map that got Capt. Romero 15 years? - EXO
|
|
|
Post by okla on Aug 15, 2016 19:34:04 GMT 8
Hey Joe....Regarding the loss of many of our tanks, I seem to recall reading of a botched up situation where quite a few of our Tanks were left on the side of the road, just East of the Calumpit bridges, awaiting refueling, when those bridges were "blown". If memory serves, the Tank crews just left all that Armor without disabling them. Does this "ring a bell" with you????I don"t recall if the Japs were breathing down the necks of our guys, or not, but they seemed to have "bugged out" rather quickly, leaving those valuable vehicles to the enemy. One would think, with hindsight, that the Tank Column would have waited for the refueling to be accomplished on the West side of those bridges, just in case the Enemy appeared to their East, at which time the Engineers could have "pushed the plunger". Ain't hindsight a great thing? As ole' Garry Truman said, "it's 20-20'. t
|
|
|
Post by joeconnor53 on Aug 15, 2016 21:27:04 GMT 8
Yes, okla, that definitely rings a bell. I'm trying to remember where I saw that. Morton maybe?
|
|
|
Post by cbuehler on Aug 15, 2016 23:22:17 GMT 8
Now I am confused. I had understood that there were some 75mm and 37mm guns still remaining, both of which could stop these tanks. As I mentioned, many a tank has been destroyed with less conventional weapons such as rigged up charges and Molotov cocktails etc. Any tank can be stopped if necessary, and the M3 nor any Japanese tank was not a very tough nut to crack. It is easy to say all of this in hindsight and we were not there, but I find it hard to believe that the defenders did not have the wherewithal to stop them. The fact that those M3 tanks were present on Corregidor must have been an embarrassment and more to Wainwright. But if these tanks were not really a factor as Tony said, what can be said for Wainwrights comments in his memoirs? So we really do not know for sure just where these tanks were landed. We all assume it was the general area below Kindley Field, but was it? CB
PS, I also wonder what would have been different if a more blood and guts Patton type General was in command instead of Wainwright.
|
|
|
Post by joeconnor53 on Aug 16, 2016 0:58:43 GMT 8
The answer may be in lack of communications. The accounts of the final battle suggest that no one knew what was going on even 100 yards from their position. Phone wires had been destroyed. It does not appear that they had field radios (This was before the ol' BC-611 walkie-talkies, right?). Runners had trouble getting through the artillery barrages. Did Wainwright or Gen. Moore have anything but the most basic outline of what was happening? Where were the field pieces? Were they still operational? Did anyone near the tanks have the ability to direct fire from those field pieces?
Is it possible Wainwright saw those tanks as more of a danger than they really were? Of course. Anything was possible in the confusion of that battle. However, we shouldn't underestimate the confusion and chaos on the ground, which would have caused perhaps insurmountable obstacles to mounting any kind of coordinated response to those tanks.
|
|