Talk:Battle of Iwo Jima

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineeBattle of Iwo Jima was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
September 14, 2006WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
April 25, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

USN Seabee's[edit]

Seabee's of the 133rd mcb attached to the 4th Marine Division landed and fought along side Marines starting with the first wave at 0859. They built many structures to include Chapel, Chowhall, runway, repair of the Japanese rock crusher, laying of miles worth of pipe, the list carries. I'm terrible at citing, referencing and fixing pages. Would it be possible for someone more talented and skilled than me to consider adding information about the Seabees to this article? They wore greens and shed blood just the same. They landed in waves as well from 0859 to 1600. They lost men. Blah blah blah

See: Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 133, Seabee and Seabees in World War IIMcb133aco (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2019[edit]

Under OUTCOME, your statistics for causalities and the source you reference are incorrect. please refer to: Cmrogel237 (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Not done You have a good source, but the numbers it gives closely match those already in the article (~7,000 marine dead + ~20,000 wounded; ~18,000 Japanese, of which 216 prisoners and the rest dead) so no change is needed. A2soup (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


This is an opinion but the POV does not seem entirely neutral. There seems to be a historical revisionist approach to the article with complete disregard to pre-atom bomb culture and information. A second opinion is that the article should be split. One to give the factual account of the battle the second to give the postwar analysis. I think there is a small issue with the statement that the airfields saw limited use with all the fighters assigned to Iwo. The VII Fighter Group was there with its P51s and at least 2 night squadrons of P61s . So I again question the POV. Another statement that raises questions of accuracy is "3 Japanese airfields", D-day there were two, the Seabees made the third.Mcb133aco (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC) mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  • The seabees completed the third. The Japanese began work on the third, but Kuribayashi halted that work. I don't think the article should be split. While VII did base a number of fighters there, their efficacy was limited at best. This article provides an interesting viewpoint on this. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The article states that the airfields saw little use or in plain English were parking lots. There efficacy is a postwar analysis. Mcb133aco (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

sp their Mcb133aco (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Not really. The article that I linked to shows the operational problems they had in operating VII from Iwo Jima. Further, that such operations yielded comparatively limited results, especially as compared to the casualties endured in taking Iwo Jima. By the time of the end of the battle, Japan simply didn't have much of an air force with which to thwart B-29 raids. These were known things during the war, not just after the war. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

POV remains an issue. All the numbers and issues you want to include are premised upon the war ending when it did. The Generals had no crystal ball and had the Atomic bomb been a dud the war would have continued and the numbers you want to cite would be problematic. That makes their inclusion to start with problematic in my opinion. This is Wikipedia not FacebookMcb133aco (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  • There's no numbers or issues I'm trying to include. I haven't edited the article itself in quite sometime other than to undo vandalism or breaking edits. The point remains that during the war it was a known fact that air cover over Japan was becoming increasingly sparse and incapable of stopping B-29 raids. That's just simple fact. There's no post war analysis that is needed to come to that conclusion. The U.S. knew this during the war. Operation San Antonio (fully three months before the Battle of Iwo Jima began), the first B-29 raid on Japan proper, saw one plane lost to enemy action. The Japanese air defenses had great difficulty in deploying fighters that could intercept the B-29s. Even late war models of fighters such as the Kawanishi N1K or the Nakajima Ki-84 lacked speed that clearly outmatched a B-29's top speed sufficient to easily intercept them. Had the war continued without a surrender, the air cover situation over Japan simply would have become even more grim, as more production plants and (critically) oil refining and distribution became more of a problem. By August 1945, Japanese refinery production was below 10% of normal production. Thus, the fuel situation with Operation Ten-Go. By June 1945, Japan was effectively out of oil. It was so bad that when the U.S. sent soldiers to arrest Hideki Tojo, his attempted suicide almost succeeded because an ambulance with gasoline could not be found to transport him. Meanwhile, the U.S. had very ample fuel supply lines. Had the war continued, Japan simply would not have been able to send planes to defend against B-29s because they had no fuel to do so. The fuel situation was a known issue during the war. The blockade of Japan by U.S. submarines was a strategy designed to strangle Japan's ability to fuel its war machine. In fact, this oil situation was the entire predicate of how the war in the Pacific began. No post war analysis is needed to reach this conclusion. It was a known fact even before the war began in the Pacific. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Whatever your point of view, the controversy demands mentioning in the lead, which I have done. That said, it was pretty obvious that Japan was beat long before Iwo Jima. Tuntable (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Fighter escort missions[edit]

These two statements seem contradictory to me: "These [long-range fighter] escorts proved both impractical and unnecessary, and only ten such missions were ever flown from Iwo Jima." and "1,191 fighter escorts ... were flown from Iwo Jima against Japan." What is the difference between them? GA-RT-22 (talk) 05:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Headline needs controversy mentioned[edit]

I put a summary in a paragraph up there, and pulled out the strategy bit from the battle bits. Iwo Jima is a very significant battle precisely because it is almost a cliche for generals fighting battles just because they can. That needs to go in the lead.

(There was another even later battle on Borneo where Australian troops nearly mutinied -- nobody wants to be the last casualty in a war.) Tuntable (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)