[Polybius]

There was a long and controversial thread on that subject some months ago. Gist of it is, the idea that the conquest of Iwo Jima meant the difference between every one member of those bomber crews living or dying is patently ridiculous. In any rational analysis more Americans died taking the island than aircrew saved by having the island. .

Maybe.....If you look at it from that single dimension.

The location and the fact that there were two Japanese airfields on the island also meant that it was a base for Japanese fighters that could intercept U.S. bombers on their way to Japan.

Its capture also meant that U.S. fighters could be stationed there as escorts for bombers over Japan.

The dangers of leaving a major Japanese air base directly in your rear during the planned invasion of Japan would also have to be factored into any decision to bypass it.

[Donald Meaker]

Japanese fighters didn't have much in the way of fuel at that time. The fighters teeth were pulled, with the only aircraft being fueled were kamakazi. Not a lot of repeat missions there.

Again, all this was unsure. It was a conservative thing to take Iwo. We hadn't been that conservative, because we couldn't be. After the defeat of Germany, we got more conservative.

[donmeaker]

The japanese fighters didn’t have any fuel, and so couldn’t intercept anyone.