Can the Philippines be saved 1941-42?

More than they did OTL - a lot was expected of them OTL and they did not deliver even an 'nth' of what was expected.

Yes attacking in shallow water was dangerous and any such attempts are risky but if they are not going to do it why have them there - they could have made a material difference to the land campaign through loss of supplies, equipment and available shipping - but did not.

A contrast is Sub Flotilla 10 operating out of Malta - it lost 50% of its boats operating very aggressively in the restricted waters of the central Med but also sunk a great deal of shipping that directly impacted events in the North African campaign - its reason for existing.

There was an issue with USN Submarine Doctrine in the early stages of the war (late war it and the USN Submarine force was amazing) - one of its greatest successes during this period for example was at Midway when the Mikuma and Mogami collided after spotting the USS Tambor during the night after the main carrier battle and taking evasive action assuming that if they had spotted the smaller submarine it must have spotted them and already fired a spread.

Tambor's captain was utterly unaware that 4 Heavy cruisers were nearby and made no attempt to attack the crippled Mogami much to the disgust of his crew instead remaining submerged during the following day.

He would later be beached for this!

So just a tad more aggression!

There was only a handful of PT boats (6?) and they are as far as I am concerned Auxiliary craft for littoral combat (excellent for actions such as the anti SLOC campaign in the Slot') and not to be confused with Destroyers, Crusiers and Submarines in terms of striking power or indeed staying power.
Shallow water in the Med was considered 100 meters about 50 fathoms, 300 foot. In Philippine waters 22 fathoms 125 foot and clear water at periscope depth that puts about 80 foot under the keel. That is not risky but suicidalYou put the fantasy of late war operations available in 1941. Asiatic fleet subs's reported 11 confirmed torpedos exploding in December. Yes 1943 tactics would be nice but that as I have said requires about a 1935 POD. As to surface ship operations, by dinner time on December 8th that was no longer an option. There were 40 P-40s and P-35s left in the Philippines, with fifteen of the fighters with the bombers at Del Monte field.
 
I have a vague recollection of reading something along the lines of the Philippine Government had rules regarding the movement of rice which complicated efforts to move rice around during the initial retreats. That may or may not have been true but I seem to recall reading that. There may also have been well founded concerns about leaving rice for the civilians to eat ?

I presume the U.S. had the authority to move its own military supplies around.
The issue was transport and planning , going back to abysmal staf work, by Mac Arthur's staff. Once the northern forces were forced to retreat it became a race to stay ahead of Japanexe forces, with most of the work done by Philippine Scouts units nd some American units, backing g up or absorbing Philippine Army units . Decisions were made to abandon Ft Stostenberg HQ of Philippine Scouts artillery school and Armory, and the 26 Cavalry, Adjacent to it was Clark Fierl also abandoned. With neither base stripped of supplies or burned, as opposed to Ft Mc Kinley, whose own commander ordered it's destruction, or Olapango Navy and Marine base whichAdm Hart orderd burnt and destroyed on evacuation.
Transport by the 23rd of December was strictly for troops retreating . Moving supplies was ordered by Washington by the 10th, but Mac Arthur decided own his own without notifying Washington to conduct forward defense, and not move supplies.
 
Shallow water in the Med was considered 100 meters about 50 fathoms, 300 foot. In Philippine waters 22 fathoms 125 foot and clear water at periscope depth that puts about 80 foot under the keel. That is not risky but suicidalYou put the fantasy of late war operations available in 1941. Asiatic fleet subs's reported 11 confirmed torpedos exploding in December. Yes 1943 tactics would be nice but that as I have said requires about a 1935 POD. As to surface ship operations, by dinner time on December 8th that was no longer an option. There were 40 P-40s and P-35s left in the Philippines, with fifteen of the fighters with the bombers at Del Monte field.
Then what where they there for?

29 boats

Sunk 1 ship in Dec

A very poor return
 
From everything I've read over the years expecting massive military equipment to be sent to the Philippines in the USA economy of the 30s is unrealistic but a POD of building a larger indigenous military and allowing the immediate attack on Formosa by the Air Corps would wound Japan, I wonder what butterflies would arise from that?
 
From everything I've read over the years expecting massive military equipment to be sent to the Philippines in the USA economy of the 30s is unrealistic but a POD of building a larger indigenous military and allowing the immediate attack on Formosa by the Air Corps would wound Japan, I wonder what butterflies would arise from that?
It's not a larger Philippine Army that was needed. The PA as it was never managed to completely mobilize. The deficits were in time, to mobilize and shake out problems, equipment, as it was poorly armed and missing all sorts of things, and long term leadership, which was getting fixed at the last minute with embedded US officers. But these had little time to work.
 
Then what where they there for?

29 boats

Sunk 1 ship in Dec

A very poor return
Torpedoes with an 80% fail rate....27 boats, 4 S- boats and 23 fleet boats; 1 was destroyed on10 Dec, , and 2 others were sent South because of damage and condition the rest sortied between 8 and10 December, averaging from multiple sources 30 attacks were made . Not enough but not knowing where the Japanese were going leaves huge areas open

From everything I've read over the years expecting massive military equipment to be sent to the Philippines in the USA economy of the 30s is unrealistic but a POD of building a larger indigenous military and allowing the immediate attack on Formosa by the Air Corps would wound Japan, I wonder what butterflies would arise from that?
Narrowback57, Mac Arthur as Field Marshall of the Philippine Army spent more time socializing and aquiring money from the Philippine treasuryt hen calling up and adequately training the Philippine Army. From what I have seen MacArthur made no effort to enlist cadres of e Philippine scouts as cadre for his units as well as Personnel detached from U.S. Forces as Instructors. The status of the Scout units had not been settled, were they going to stay in U.S. Service or become a part of the Philippine Army. Mac Arthur would have been better of with well trained and equipped Battalions ,then virtually untrained and under equipped Divisions.

As to air attacks, Mac Arthur insisted that the U.S. not make any aggressive moves until the Japanese did. He did not count the 0500 hours 8 December attack on the Navy Seaplane Tender at Davo. General Breeton Commander of the USAAC in the Far East had been requesting permission since 0500 but Chief of Staff Sutherland would not let him talk to Mac Arthur, nor attack, on his own Breeton planned a photo recon flight to precede a bombing attack and a mass attack by his B-17 C and Ds , but could not get permission. At dawn Breeton scrambled all his aircraft to prevent them being caught on the ground. However all aircraft circled their own fields and there was no forward CAP to the north. By the time Breeton got permission the planes needed to refuel and virtually all aircraft had landed and the flight and ground crews went to Lunch, which i s when the Japanese attack arrived. Radar at Iba had seen aircraft approaching but did not have the equipment to refine bearing, distance, and altitude. THe only fire control set was the USMC set sitting all alone at Cavite, unable to function, because Mac Arthur had ordered the USMC SCR-270 mobile radar 100 miles south to Batangas.
 
Torpedoes with an 80% fail rate....27 boats, 4 S- boats and 23 fleet boats; 1 was destroyed on10 Dec, , and 2 others were sent South because of damage and condition the rest sortied between 8 and10 December, averaging from multiple sources 30 attacks were made . Not enough but not knowing where the Japanese were going leaves huge areas open
I appreciate the torpedo scandal and the shallow waters at the invasion point and appreciate that I am 'perhaps' being harsh on them.

But while I fully understand how the Mk14 situation came about and why it was not discovered before 7th Dec, what gives me heartburn is the shallow water would have been known about well before 7th Dec and the need to oppose any invasion force was also known.

And yet nearly a 1/4 of the USNs submarine strength in Dec 1941 was based there!

All I am suggesting is that the force is used better - parking shallow water and faulty torpedoes for a moment - only 2 boats were at sea on the 7th and the orders given to the boats by the leaders where 'risk adverse' in nature which coupled with the then restrictive doctrine led to the captains being risk adverse.

The S class subs used the older MK10s which were as far as I am aware far more reliable than the mid war MK14 was with no real issues that I have ever heard of andf they continued to be used till the end of the war.

Perhaps if more attacks are made earlier the issues with the MK14s are known or suspected earlier and the fleet boats start carrying some MK10s instead?

Given the large amount of sea lifts the Japanese conducted in the first year of the war starting to sink a number of the Maru's initially used is going to seriously degrade Japans early efforts to support the invasion and subsequent 'lifts' as any lost ship will have to be replaced and any equipment lost on said ship replaced as well.
 
I'm finding December 8, 1941 MacArthur's Pearl Harbor by William Bartsch very illuminating reading, his Doomed from the Start is next on my list.

The rapid fall of the Philippines, the nearly immediate destruction of the FEAF and the deaths and surrender of over 100,000 US servicemembers and Philippine soldiers is a classic case of too little, too late. The decision to reinforce and not quickly abandon the PI came far too late to organize, equip and train the defending forces. It wasn't until October 1941 that Marshall, Arnold (and Roosevelt) decided to massively beef up the offensive and defensive air capability. The decision to base 170 B-17 and B24 heavy bombers, 86 light and medium bombers and 195 first rate fighters in the PI by October 1942 was intended to deter Japanese aggression, particularly by threatening to bomb Formosa and southern Japan. Most of these aircraft were expected to be delivered by March 1942, with large quantities scheduled to arrive by the end of December 1941. Even though it was possible to achieve the aircraft totals in these timeframes, there were great obstacles in the way of having this formidable air armada becoming effective.

In December 1941, there were only two airfields capable of accommodating heavy bombers, Clark and Del Monte, and Del Monte was only a primitive 2600' strip. MacArthur and his Air Commanders initiated a crash airfield construction program, but there was too little time and too few resources and construction personnel to make the fields ready before the new bombers and fighters were due to arrive. A half dozen or so smaller fighter fields were still being improved or were under construction when the Japanese attacked. The lack of adequate airfields hindered the shipment of new aircraft and caused great congestion at the existing fields.

Maintenance facilities were either inadequate or nonexistent, particularly when only the heavies were planned to be ferried cross-Pacific intact. All other aircraft were to arrive by sea and needed to be assembled and tested before becoming operational. There were no spares for anything and no facilities capable for major engine overhauls. Brereton cabled Arnold a request for engines and spares with engines needing major repairs or scheduled rebuilds to be shipped back to continental US repair depots by sea. Prestone coolant was late in arriving with initial P-40 deliveries. There wasn't specific mention of an inadequate number of mechanics, but this is implied when an overall shortage of base support organization and facilities was noted.

Many of the newly arrived pilots and flight crew had come straight from flight schools, lacking any operational experience, no experience with the specific aircraft they were going to be flying and some with no multi-engine training when they were going to be flying bombers. There was an almost universal lack of gunnery training, and with a severe shortage of .50 caliber ammunition, only 2 of all P-40Es in country had been test fired. To gain/maintain gunnery skills, pilots trained with the .30 guns in older P-35 and P-26 pursuit fighters. There was also a bomb shortage.

Other roadblocks to a successful defense organization were personality conflicts and professional rivalries among several mid and senior level commanders holding key positions. The lethargic "tropical" 1/2 day work schedule and laid back attitude permitted by MacArthur persisted until the arrival of the sickly BG Henry Clagett in May 41, and it wasn't until the arrival of MG Brereton to assume command of the newly designated Far East Air Force in November that the air arm of USAFE began to take the imminent threat of war with Japan seriously, but by then it was too late to do much.

The depressing situation was similar with the U.S. led ground forces, and it all couldn't be laid at MacArthur's feet.
 
Then what where they there for?

29 boats

Sunk 1 ship in Dec

A very poor return
Unrealistic prewar doctrine had U.S. Subs staying below periscope depth and firing torpedoes based on sonar bearings. A sub captain could wreak his career by having his periscope spotted during fleet problems. Aggressive tactics were strongly discouraged in the prewar period. It took months to purge the submarine service of the overly cautious officers and bring in younger more aggressive men. Along with the lossy torpedoes it's no wonder the results were so poor.
 
I appreciate the torpedo scandal and the shallow waters at the invasion point and appreciate that I am 'perhaps' being harsh on them.

But while I fully understand how the Mk14 situation came about and why it was not discovered before 7th Dec, what gives me heartburn is the shallow water would have been known about well before 7th Dec and the need to oppose any invasion force was also known.

And yet nearly a 1/4 of the USNs submarine strength in Dec 1941 was based there!

All I am suggesting is that the force is used better - parking shallow water and faulty torpedoes for a moment - only 2 boats were at sea on the 7th and the orders given to the boats by the leaders where 'risk adverse' in nature which coupled with the then restrictive doctrine led to the captains being risk adverse.

The S class subs used the older MK10s which were as far as I am aware far more reliable than the mid war MK14 was with no real issues that I have ever heard of andf they continued to be used till the end of the war.

Perhaps if more attacks are made earlier the issues with the MK14s are known or suspected earlier and the fleet boats start carrying some MK10s instead?

Given the large amount of sea lifts the Japanese conducted in the first year of the war starting to sink a number of the Maru's initially used is going to seriously degrade Japans early efforts to support the invasion and subsequent 'lifts' as any lost ship will have to be replaced and any equipment lost on said ship replaced as well.
The MK XIV issue comes from the pinch penny budgets of the depressions years. I have not found a confirmed firing of a fully live MKXIV torpedo against a vessel. Normally torpedo live fires were single shots once a quarter if lucky, into nets. In the 1920s, Admiral Hart, when commander of the Newport Torpedo station ran afoul of FDR , then Asst Secretary of the Navy. Over Hart's complaints of inefficiency and lack of quality control.
This issue alone has been the heart of several Alt Hist. Stories.
Question; what good does it do to have the Asiatic Fleet subs circling patrol zones, when they have no idea where the Japanexe were going.
What Hart had requested at one time was a division of DMLs
 
The MK XIV issue comes from the pinch penny budgets of the depressions years. I have not found a confirmed firing of a fully live MKXIV torpedo against a vessel. Normally torpedo live fires were single shots once a quarter if lucky, into nets. In the 1920s, Admiral Hart, when commander of the Newport Torpedo station ran afoul of FDR , then Asst Secretary of the Navy. Over Hart's complaints of inefficiency and lack of quality control.
This issue alone has been the heart of several Alt Hist. Stories.
Question; what good does it do to have the Asiatic Fleet subs circling patrol zones, when they have no idea where the Japanexe were going.
What Hart had requested at one time was a division of DMLs
Yes a great deal of torpedo issues in WW2 (not just USN) came about as torpedo testing tended to use the same torpedoes which where given a lot of TLC by very skilled engineers prior to each test.

Also they were tested in very benign conditions by people who where being looked at to produce solid positive results - I am not surprised to hear the issues that Hart raised pre war.

And its not just torpedoes - USN larger gun shells had an issue with the fuses not working due to acid build up from the Explosive "D" (ammonium picrate) filler corroding them in as little as 6 months.

It was not discovered until the Navy got its hands on unexploded 16" shells after Operation Torch (fired at Jean Bart - half the shells didn't do their duty) and the entire estate of shells modified by dipping the fuses into liquid 'Bakelite' Liquid plastic within 6 months.

The German G7 issues early war where due to similar unappreciated restraints and they to had issues with their shells not working - for example the majority of the shells that hit HMS Exeter at River Plate (5 out of 7) failed to explode.

Anyway - a better use of the USN Submarine force regardless of the weapon and operational issues is likely to have paid some pretty significant dividends - not necessarily for the Philippine's campaign but certainly for the follow on movement of troops etc - some units being moved 3 times during the first year of the pacific war.

Yes DMLs would have been very useful - I wonder if there are any ferry's (a couple of railway ferry's were used by the British early in WW2) that can be repurposed into mine layers?

We still have the issue of where would they be laid?

I know that minefields were laid - wasn't there was a ship full of evacuating civilians that sunk after hitting one - vague recollection cannot recall the details.
 
Should observe, but an American raid on Formosa with the available B-17s in December ‘41 or early-‘42 would probably have done very little to blunt the Japanese assault. Lack of intelligence is the key problem here. The Americans had only the vaguest idea of Japanese targets on Formosa and the bombing would likely have been ineffective as a result. In fact, a lot of the Japanese bombing was also ineffective despite their far better intelligence on the airfields on Luzon. As the Battle of Britain had previously shown, level bombers coming in at medium altitude tended to focus on buildings, and weren't that much of a danger to planes parked out on airfields. Most of the damage done to the aircraft of the FEAF was actually dealt by strafing fighters.
 
Last edited:

Sekhmet_D

Kicked
Should observe, but an American raid on Formosa with the available B-17s in December ‘41 or early-‘42 would probably have done very little to blunt the Japanese assault. Lack of intelligence is the key problem here. The Americans had only the vaguest idea of Japanese targets on Formosa and the bombing would likely have been ineffective as a result. In fact, a lot of the Japanese bombing was also ineffective despite their far better intelligence on the airfields on Luzon. As the Battle of Britain had previously shown, level bombers coming in at medium altitude tended to focus on buildings, and weren't that much of a danger to planes parked out on airfields. Most of the damage done to the aircraft of the FEAF was actually dealt by strafing fighters.
The Japanese bombing raid may have been COMPARATIVELY ineffective, but it was still some of their finest high altitude horizontal bombing throughout the entire war. Not a single one of the six hundred plus bombs they dropped on Clark fell more than 200 feet beyond the base's perimeter.

About most of the damage done to the FEAF's aircraft actually being inflicted by strafing A6Ms. The 3rd Ku and Tainan Ku made claims for 47 aircraft destroyed on the ground on 8 December. But total American losses on the ground were about 50, including five P-40s that were definitely victims of the aerial bombing instead of strafing, so the A6M pilots' claims, as with their claims elsewhere during the war, have to be taken with a grain of salt. A6Ms had enough difficulty destroying B-17s in the air; I see no reason why destroying them on the ground would've been any easier.

As for what damage Brereton's B-17s might have inflicted upon the Japanese at Takao, I can find no evidence that the Japanese made any effort whatsoever to disperse or fortify their airfield assets. At the very least Brereton could have caught them at the moment of takeoff. I find it hard to accept that his pilots would have ignored a mass of aircraft on the runways in favour of bombing buildings.
 
I think the most reasonable late POD for a mostly successful defense of Bataan and Manilla Bay through at least July 1942 needs to happen in 1938 or 1939.

In my timeline, I had the US Army which received a substantial cash and manpower infusion in 1937 consider Luzon to be their proving ground for promising young field grade officers and NCOs from 1938-1941 with substantial time in the field for quasi-realistic training. Concurrently, the US also recruits up to full strength the Philippine Scout regiments which gives a good base of professional and local manpower for future cadre. During the process of live fire training, substantial problem identification occurs with the material stocks of the Commonwealth stockpiles and steps are taken to fix those problems. This means figuring out that most of the artillery/mortar ammo and rifles are faulty and then implementing fixes or importing brand new stocks.

Another POD would be for the US to fund substantial elements of the PCA training and mobilization plan Fall 1940 when the US institutes the draft and substantial National Guard call-ups are in place. A targeted mobilization where instead of every PCA division bringing in their first regiment for training and then the 2nd regiment several months later and finally the third regiment after that so that divisions trained as a division may have improved the quality of soldiers if only three or four divisions were mobilized in October 1940 with the same number of 1st wave regiments as OTL mobilization plan but with a full year to work up to combat readiness with multiple weeks in the field conducting both regimental and divisional size exercises would have likely helped.

Again, getting construction troops on Bataan to build out the naval base at Marivales as well as substantial warehouses on the peninsula plus fixed defenses would have likely helped.

Those are all pre 1941 decisions that would be needed. The next big set of decisions would be summer 1941 with the plan to use a locally relevant version of WPO with picket/observation forces on the Lingayan Gulf beaches instead of a crust of poorly trained PCA infantry that could and was defeated in detail. Fully embracing WPO also means that every quartermaster knows precisely how to evacuate needed materials to Bataan as well as conducting a whole of government inventory of dual-use supplies including the rice supply warehouses with explicit plans to move as much as possible to Bataan ASAP once the word came down. Concurrently having a Supreme Commander who could mediate the differences between Army and Navy responsibilities to mine Lingayan Gulf and other interior waters once a war warning went out would have marginally helped.

So to sum this up, the US would need to make a set of decisions in 1938 or 1939 that Luzon is worth spending a substantial amount of scarce defense dollars for a colony that won't be a US Army problem for that long AND then as WWII mobilization begins in CONUS, those mobilization steps are also undertaken in the Philippines while being paid by US dollars. Concurrently, there is substantial recognition that an active forward defense is unlikely to succeed, and the best that can be achieved is an objective denial mission which needs substantial civil and field engineering pre-war support.

How likely is that? Good question!
 
On War Plan Orange, and the instruction to "fort up" in Bataan and deny Manila Bay as long as possible.

While the official position was to use the small US Army garrison in the Philippines to just deny the Harbor of Manila as long as possible, this was a view that received a lot of debate and push back over the years. Many of the local commanders had argued for a mobile defense intended to destroy a Japanese landing, not just trying to hold out for a relief fleet from the US that would never arrive in time, and most likely wasn't coming at all. You will not be surprised to learn that Macarthur, as Philippine Department commander and later as US Army Chief of Staff, was vehemently opposed to a passive and fatalist plan. He wanted to mount a mobile defense, crushing the Japanese on the beaches at Lingayen Gulf. The problem, of course, is that the US Army Garrison in the Philippines during the interwar years averaged a little over 10,000 soldiers, including Filipino Scouts, and would be overwhelmed by a Japanese invasion force.

Raising a reserve-based army of the Philippines should have been the way out of this dilemma, but as we've been discussing, it was nowhere near as ready in training, leadership and material as intended in 1941, let alone what it needed to be. When Macarthur was returned to active duty and given command, that was de facto an endorsement of active defense in the Philippines, and Marshall and the Washington staff would have known this. The plan to hold out on Bataan was abandoned in the summer of 1941, and done with the knowledge and consent of the American leadership.
 
On War Plan Orange, and the instruction to "fort up" in Bataan and deny Manila Bay as long as possible.

While the official position was to use the small US Army garrison in the Philippines to just deny the Harbor of Manila as long as possible, this was a view that received a lot of debate and push back over the years. Many of the local commanders had argued for a mobile defense intended to destroy a Japanese landing, not just trying to hold out for a relief fleet from the US that would never arrive in time, and most likely wasn't coming at all. You will not be surprised to learn that Macarthur, as Philippine Department commander and later as US Army Chief of Staff, was vehemently opposed to a passive and fatalist plan. He wanted to mount a mobile defense, crushing the Japanese on the beaches at Lingayen Gulf. The problem, of course, is that the US Army Garrison in the Philippines during the interwar years averaged a little over 10,000 soldiers, including Filipino Scouts, and would be overwhelmed by a Japanese invasion force.

Raising a reserve-based army of the Philippines should have been the way out of this dilemma, but as we've been discussing, it was nowhere near as ready in training, leadership and material as intended in 1941, let alone what it needed to be. When Macarthur was returned to active duty and given command, that was de facto an endorsement of active defense in the Philippines, and Marshall and the Washington staff would have known this. The plan to hold out on Bataan was abandoned in the summer of 1941, and done with the knowledge and consent of the American leadership.
Agreed... but matching forces with missions means that the active forward defense concept is likely not a viable concept until late 1942 or 1943 so what is the plan until the force levels are viable for the desired mission.
 
The Japanese bombing raid may have been COMPARATIVELY ineffective, but it was still some of their finest high altitude horizontal bombing throughout the entire war. Not a single one of the six hundred plus bombs they dropped on Clark fell more than 200 feet beyond the base's perimeter.
About most of the damage done to the FEAF's aircraft actually being inflicted by strafing A6Ms. The 3rd Ku and Tainan Ku made claims for 47 aircraft destroyed on the ground on 8 December. But total American losses on the ground were about 50, including five P-40s that were definitely victims of the aerial bombing instead of strafing, so the A6M pilots' claims, as with their claims elsewhere during the war, have to be taken with a grain of salt. A6Ms had enough difficulty destroying B-17s in the air; I see no reason why destroying them on the ground would've been any easier.
None of this really contradicts anything I said. Okay, and? Most of them still aimed at the buildings rather than the planes on the airway. Which were lost

And as for the losses, it's the American assessment I'm using, not the Japanese one. Yeah, 5 P-40s lost to bombing, but by your own admission that was out of 50 total aircraft. That's 10% of the losses. Now if I claimed that all of the bombers, yes, this would contradict me. But I said most, not all and even if we assume that the number of "actuals" to bombings were double the 5 that were verified for sure, 80% of losses to strafing's is still most. If the Americans somehow achieve similar results - which is dubious given that they are operating with vastly inferior intelligence (with the resulting impact that has on planning) and pilot skill, they'll have killed 10 aircraft... out of 547. I haven't seen a solid figure for historical Japanese air losses attacking the island, but they seem to have been extremely light, so ten additional losses would be practically nothing.

As for what damage Brereton's B-17s might have inflicted upon the Japanese at Takao, I can find no evidence that the Japanese made any effort whatsoever to disperse or fortify their airfield assets. At the very least Brereton could have caught them at the moment of takeoff. I find it hard to accept that his pilots would have ignored a mass of aircraft on the runways in favour of bombing buildings.

Even leaving aside the accuracy issues coming from the inexperienced crews, how are the planners behind this B-17 raid are supposed to know this well enough to target that airfield in particular out of all the myriad ones dotting Formosa? The Americans barely knew where Japanese airfields on Formosa were. They didn't have the first clue how Japanese forces on Formosa were deployed. You can't run an effective bombing campaign that way.
 
Top