WWII - I could have saved mass American lives in the Pacific

[SaltyNuts]

So many, many American lives were lost on the beaches attacking islands from landing craft - men disembarking from the landing craft were most vulnerable for obvious reasons, most importantly because they were being dropped onto flat beaches and were totally vulnerable to machine-gun fire from Japanese positions concealed and fortified in the treeline just past the beach. They had no cover.

Now, many times these Japanese positions were bombed by bombers and shelled by ships, but it did very little good because, as noted, the Japanese positions were typically well concealed and fortified.

So, I was thinking. If instead of the bombers dropping many thousands of pounds of bombs on these fortified positions that did very little good, they should have been dropping LOGS on the beach. That's right. LOGS. So that the marines, as soon as they hit the beach, could use them for cover. The men hitting the beach go from being totally exposed to having excellent cover.

You might say, "well, the Japanese could just remove the logs". But here's the thing - you drop them the same day that the seaborne troops will be coming ashore. And if the Japanese troops come out of their concealed and fortified positions to try and remove the logs, then they've exposed themselves and you can blow them to bits with your battleships and heavy cruisers sitting offshore!

And you could even take it a step further. I'm sure logs would work great, but you could probably design a more light-weight and sturdy (it has to be able to take at least machine-gun fire, grenade resistant would be good as well) material to form blocks that would offer our troops protection. Fiberglass? I don't know, but I'm sure there are good candidates. There could even be designed in fire trenches, peep-holes, etc. etc. - whatever might benefit our troops.

I can't believe this was not done. Military technology moves so slow sometimes - like the mass attacks by troops right into machine-gun nests in WWI or attacking tanks with lances on horseback in WWII lol.

 

[ControlD]

I can't believe this was not done. Military technology moves so slow sometimes - like the mass attacks by troops right into machine-gun nests in WWI or attacking tanks with lances on horseback in WWII lol.

I'm pretty sure that's a myth.

 

[glenn1]

Logs float and would have been washed away by tides and waves. So you'd go through all the time and trouble of airdropping lumber and it wouldn't be there once troops started landing.

 

[SaltyNuts]

Logs float and would have been washed away by tides and waves. So you'd go through all the time and trouble of airdropping lumber and it wouldn't be there once troops started landing.

LOL, drop them where the high tide won't reach? Drop them right before your troops come ashore? Put holes in them so they won't float? Do you ever think before you post?

 

[NoTine42]

The C130 started production in 1954 so I don't think we had extra long-range heavy air cargo capacity at the time.

Although, having Howard Hughes land the Spruce Goose before a landing would accomplish much of your idea.

 

[IronWing]

For Normandy, the plan was to use mass rocket attacks on the beaches to create craters for the troops to use as shelter from enemy gunfire. The Brits pulled it off in their sectors. The Americans launched the rockets from too far out at sea, so the rockets fell in the ocean, doing no good. This plus other troop preservation measures that the Brits executed correctly and the Americans botched led to a ridiculous disparity in casualty rates between the Brits and Americans at Normandy.

 

[Newbian]

LOL, drop them where the high tide won't reach? Drop them right before your troops come ashore? Put holes in them so they won't float? Do you ever think before you post?

Judging by the thread you made I guess you don't.

 

[ControlD]

Precision guided logs? I think they had a hard enough time getting bombs on target most of the time. Trying to drop logs from an altitude where the bomber is safe from ground fire accurately? I don't think so.

 

[ronbo613]

Hindsight is usually pretty accurate, but not in this case. That's why they don't ask for civilian input for military decisions. Bombing an amphibious landing zone not only destroys or damages enemy positions, but bombs make holes, big ones. These bomb craters are about all the cover a soldier is going to get on open ground. Dropping logs is not feasible for a number of reasons. Airplanes are meant to carry personnel and bombs and not configured for logs. Covering a landing zone with logs would provide minimal cover, depending on how they land. What the logs would do would be to impede vehicles, except tracked vehicles, from traversing the landing zone. If you ask an infantryman what he would prefer for cover, I'm sure he would pick a hole(like "foxholes") over a log 99.9% of the time.

It would be cool to see a B52 drop a bunch of logs. That would make quite a mess.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Put holes in them so they won't float?

.... That's not how buoyancy works.

Also, your idea is terrible. Many of the troops were killed on the boats, which the logs would do shit for. Those that got off the boat and to shore (where your log-cover would be) made it to the tank/amphibious vehicle caltrops, which provided the same level of cover.

Also, a big gun (.50 cal) shreds logs.

Also, if they had aircraft capable of dropping tons of logs on a beach, they would have dropped tons of bombs on the nests overlooking the beach instead. Because duh.

 

[FeuerFrei]

They could have used an atom bomb to create a giant tsunami and just ride the crest onto land. Sounds like fun times. Nuclear-powered invasion.

 

[feralkid]

What if Spartacus had a Sherman tank?

 

[OutHouse]

a B25 payload is 1,200 lb. a B-24 payload is 8,000 lb, depending if its pine or hardwood thats not a lot of logs per plane. pretty sure you would want hardwood to for more bullet stopping power. but strapping logs on a bomber is stupid, it would totally wreck the airflow and if you got into turbulence the log bouncing would be a nightmare.

 

[BudAshes]

Well that is one of the stupidest things I've ever read. Congrats.

 

[runzwithsizorz]

An idea I had was to saturate the area first with diesel fuel. Unlike napalm, diesel fuel could seep down into tunnels, bunkers, and air vents.
If the fire doesn't get them, then perhaps the inferno would suck all the oxygen away ?

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Hindsight is usually pretty accurate, but not in this case. That's why they don't ask for civilian input for military decisions.

During WWII, they did. The concept of "contributing to the war effort" blurred the lines a lot more than it is now.

For instance, it was a civilian engineer who thought up those non-slip sandpaper strips they put by the doors in the aircraft that airborne jump out of.

That's the nature of WWII, in a nutshell - when you're desperate, no idea is to be disqualified because of it's source, and even the ones that sound stupid are still worth a try. Which is why we also had weaponized bats.

 

[pauldun170]

 

[NesuD]

LOL, drop them where the high tide won't reach? Drop them right before your troops come ashore? Put holes in them so they won't float? Do you ever think before you post?

 

[sandorski]

We should all chip in to buy a Time Machine. Think of all the Lives we'll save!!

 

[tynopik]

one simple idea that could have saved mass American lives in the Pacific: don't invade any islands, just keep dropping a-bombs until Japan surrenders or is turned into glass

 

[deustroop]

one simple idea that could have saved mass American lives in the Pacific: don't invade any islands, just keep dropping a-bombs until Japan surrenders or is turned into glass

Unfortunately they had already defeated those islands by the time the Fat Man was ready. Where the USA unnecessarily lost a bunch of lives, then and in the future, was ignoring McArthur's call during the Korean Campaign to Fat Man the Chinese. What a lost opportunity to save lives at the Chosin Reservoir and in upcoming wars against the Chinese.

 

[ronbo613]

During WWII, they did. The concept of "contributing to the war effort" blurred the lines a lot more than it is now.

For instance, it was a civilian engineer who thought up those non-slip sandpaper strips they put by the doors in the aircraft that airborne jump out of.

That's the nature of WWII, in a nutshell - when you're desperate, no idea is to be disqualified because of it's source, and even the ones that sound stupid are still worth a try. Which is why we also had weaponized bats.

I probably should have said that the military does not ask for civilian input on military strategy and tactics. You're right about WWII. When a nation is fighting for existence, the "war effort" includes just about everybody. The people who designed and built the aircraft needed to drop logs on the beachhead were civilians as well.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

I probably should have said that the military does not ask for civilian input on military strategy and tactics. You're right about WWII. When a nation is fighting for existence, the "war effort" includes just about everybody. The people who designed and built the aircraft needed to drop logs on the beachhead were civilians as well.

Hmm... that's not really true either. Tactics, sure. But overall strategy is usually determined by civilian leadership. (For better or worse.)

I'd also contend that if you spend some time looking through the personal libraries of generals and admirals, you'd probably find a lot of books by civilian authors that nonetheless inform their decision-making.

 

[Mayne]

Maybe if America got into the war years earlier before it got out of control...things might of been different.

 

[BoomerD]

The OP is a fucking moron. The only thing that would have helped is if we would have dropped thousands of sharks with lasers on their heads...oh...and giant floating mega-tanks with pulse cannons and BFG's...