Posted on 11/19/2006 6:25:59 AM PST by snowsislander
Sixty-three years ago this month, the 2nd Marine Division landed in the Gilbert Islands on a tiny islet smaller than New York City's Central Park. In doing so, it precipitated one of the most vicious battles in the history of a Corps that has become famous for tough fights. Betio was the name of the island, but the battle has become known by the name of the atoll in which Betio formed the centerpiece of the Japanese defense: Tarawa.
As much as any battle of World War II, Tarawa illustrates the profound difference between how the American news media regarded war in 1943 and how it does so today.
The landing at Tarawa, for example, was plagued from the start by what today would almost certainly be characterized as an intelligence failure. Tarawa was surrounded by a fringing reef that extended as far out as a thousand yards in places. On D-day, the tide was so low that landing craft could not cross the reef. Many Marines were forced to debark at the edge of the reef and wade in to the beach under murderous fire.
The Marines who had planned the operation were disappointed, but not surprised. The question of tides had surfaced early in the planning process. The planners knew that tides would be lower than normal on D-day, but no one knew whether or not the water over the reef would be so low that landing craft could not reach the beach.
Unfortunately, the American naval charts and tidal information were based largely on data collected by the Wilkes Expedition of the mid-1800s. Even local mariners with recent experience were unable to predict the tides with certainty.
To hedge their bets, the Marines looked for an alternate way to land. The solution was the amphibious tractor or amtrac. This ingenious vehicle could swim ashore like a boat but could crawl over the reef on its tracks if necessary.
Before they could implement their innovative plan, the Marines had to surmount two obstacles. The first was to round up an adequate number of amtracs. The best they were able to do was to assemble enough to land the first three waves. The rest of the Marines would literally have to wade into the fight.
Because the amtracs were designed as logistics vehicles, they were unarmored. To afford them minimum protection, the Marines searched junkyards throughout New Zealand, where they were stationed, for boiler plate and other pieces of scrap that could be welded to the amtracs as a form of home-made armor.
The planners were also relying on an intense pre-landing bombardment by air and naval gunfire to eliminate, or seriously damage, the coast-defense guns and heavy machine-guns on Betio that could destroy the amtracs during the landing. In spite of predictions that the bombardment would "obliterate" the defenders, the reality was very different.
The hundreds of reinforced concrete and coconut-log bunkers and gun positions that caused some historians to call Tarawa "the most heavily defended atoll that would ever be invaded by Allied forces in the Pacific" proved to be largely impervious to bombs and gunfire. As a result, the Marines were forced to dig the Japanese out of their positions one bunker at a time. The defenders were Rikusentai, special naval-landing-force troops who preferred death to surrender. When the battle was over, eight of the 2,571 defenders were alive. The rest had been killed in the fighting or had committed suicide to avoid capture.
Because Tarawa was the first assault against a heavily defended atoll, the Marines were breaking new ground. They found themselves lacking adequate numbers of flamethrowers, tanks and demolition teams needed to deal with extensive fortifications. The battle degenerated into the most savage kind of no-quarter close combat that was reflected in American casualties. In the 76 hours it took to secure Betio, the Marines and their Navy corpsmen suffered 3,407 casualties, more than a thousand of them killed.
The toll at Tarawa shocked the American public. Gen. Douglas MacArthur criticized the landing as "an unnecessary massacre," and some members of Congress demanded an investigation.
Robert Sherrod, a war correspondent who landed with the Marines on Betio, became convinced that the Japanese adopted their fatalistic approach in the "hope that the Americans would grow sick of their own losses before completing the job."
Shortly after the battle, a New York Times editorial dealt with the numerous American mistakes at Tarawa by noting that "a cunning enemy like the Japanese will always present us with problems that can never be quite solved in advance." The editorial went on to say that the approach adopted by the enemy "makes the war against Japan a war of extermination in which there is virtually no quarter."
Incredible! A paper that now worries about depriving captured terrorists of their sleep was writing in 1943 about a war in which enemy garrisons "will have to be killed off to the last man."
One can only wonder how today's New York Times would have dealt with Tarawa and what the impact might have been on American public opinion.
Col. Theodore L. Gatchel (USMC, ret.), a monthly contributor, is a military historian and a professor of operations at the Naval War College. The views here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Naval War College, the U.S. Navy or the Department of Defense.
Thanks for the ping.
Happy belated Birthday bump
They would demand the resignation of all the generals in charge of the operation. If I recall my history, there was an investigation as it was because of the high death rates.
bannie, have you tried looking on e bay for the issue???If you know the edition, most public library has all of Life magazine on microfilm.
We don't know the issue, but it was in either 1944 or 1945. We also don't know if it was in LIFE or in LOOK. Each one had 52 copies each year. Really, I have just begun my search in earnest. As I said, I have several copies of LIFE headed my way. Each of them mentioned some aspect of Tarawa. :-) Dad's 87, so I'm looking harder than before.
bannie could you describe the photo to me. I have some time on my hands later in the week and as I said our local library has ALL the Life and Look magazines on microfilm. I remember looking through them a few years ago.
Great military battles are won by leaders who have sufficient committment, strength of will, and self-confidence that they can get the troops to fight for them. Some degree of military prowess helps, too. Absence of jerk-dom and pomposity aren't included in the list of attributes.
Most of history's great military leaders were loud, rude, or pompous jerks, and many were masters of internal politics. Dugout Doug fit the mold.
Some say Chesty 'lost it' on Peleliu... going strongpoint to strongpoint along the Umurbrogol. There's a picture of Puller with Rupertus during the height of the combat... in it, Puller looks raving mad. The First Marine Division was basically bled white... so many of the combat veterans were lost.
Thanks for the ping...
There was a flotilla set to invade WAKE of our own troops, many dont know that, to invade before the island was taken.
Almost all the Marines you could fit on a group of ships, over 3000 if I remember right, also a major task force was going out to meet them, but Adm King said no, it was too risky after Pearl
The Marines were furious.
i didn't know that...thank you..
that should be only 50+ kia's of our own...not 550
I did not say that the presence or absence of such is a qualification or lack therof.
It is my opinion that Macarthur's prowess was way overblown by his own image projection machinations, and that the general impression of his tactical genius was a product of him, his benefactors and his staff. (Inchon was brilliantly done, that I give him credit for, but the dummy couldn't keep his mouth shut in Korea. He could not accept that, for better or worse, the military is controlled by elected officials, not the other way around. He began to think he had the same power over the use he wielded over Japan after the war. Not so smart)
Patton was even more rude, arrogant and (sometimes) pompous, but he had the advantage of producing results.
Imagine ANY president doing that today, he would be shot by the secret service! :)
Ohmygosh! That would be an unbelievable gift!!!!!
It's a picture of my dad (a tall, thin, good-lloking, 24-year-old white guy with straight light-brown hair) playing poker on a cot with several other young officers. They were probably drinking beer -- I think that upset my grandma as much as anything.
PLEASE don't think that this is expected of you, in any way!!! SERIOUSLY! This might take a forever to find...and I don't expect it of you in ANY way!
Simply to have the offer is entirely generous!!
BLESS YOU!!!
What year did this man serve?
It will help narrow down the search!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.