Comments on: TINIAN, JULY-AUGUST 1944

By: SHERMAN TITE--EVANSVILLE, IN

SHERMAN TITE--EVANSVILLE, IN — Fri, 20 May 2011 03:09:31 +0000

JIM VALLE AND WOODY SANFORD:
READ YOUR “POSTS” AND IT STIRRED THE SAME QUESTIONS IN
ME. I THINK YOU BOTH ARE RIGHT IN YOUR ASSUMPTIONS. I
WAS IN USN 1956-1960. SPENT MY LAST YEAR AND A HALF 1958-59
AT RADIO BARRIGADA ON THE ISLAND OF GUAM. GUAM OF COURSE
BEING A MUCH,MUCH LARGER ISLAND THAN TINIAN. TINIAN WAS
ABOUT 75 MILES DUE NORTH OF GUAM. WISH I COULD HAVE SEEN
IT. BUT WOULDN’T HAVE WANTED TO BE THERE IN 1944. WHEW!
MY EMAIL ADDRESS IS USERMRGURK@INSIGHTBB.COM …DROP ME
A LINE IF YOU CARE TO.

By: Woody Sanford

Woody Sanford — Sun, 08 Aug 2010 20:53:56 +0000

To Jim Valle,
I agree that the pre-invasion bombing was seemingly quite long and heavy by previous standards. I wonder if by this stage of the Pacific Campaign, the National Authority and Theatre Commanders were becoming much more concerned about the heavy Marine casualties in the earlier amphibious Island invasions,i.e.Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Saipan, Peliliu. The USMC paid a quite heavy price for those victories. Of course, the worse came later– Iwo Jima, Okinawa– but they might have been thinking of saving some lives at the time of the Tinian assault. Woody Sanford

By: Jim Valle

Jim Valle — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 21:52:12 +0000

One part of this piece that really intrigued me was the reference to forty days of naval gunfire and ariel bombing prior to the Marine landings. It seems that by that stage of the war the Japanese had become adept at tunneling, constructing deep bunkers and establishing small concrete pillboxes that were very difficult to knock out except by direct infantry assault. I find myself wondering if the resources expended on preliminary bombardment could have been better utilized in some other way? Could they have been withheld until the troops were ashore and could pinpoint exactly what they wanted blasted? I wasn’t there, of course. I’m just wondering if anybody has any thoughts on this subject.