Trent Telenko Profile picture
Jun 1, 2021 23 tweets 12 min read Read on X
After a several weeks hiatus, this thread is revisiting the logistical disaster known as Operation Iceberg.

Specifically, it is looking at the planned versus executed beach clearance capability in the campaign.
1/
The opening tweet to this thread showed the "beach clearance standard narrative."

There was a lot more going on covering a much larger area of Okinawa and Ie Shima battle space.

The interactions between these beaches clearance supply capacity & operations is unexplored.
2/
This map is a big part of the unexamined beach clearance narrative. It is the map of the operations of the US Army 1st Engineer Special Brigade. One of the very few ETO units that made the trip to the Pacific and fought there as well.
3/
As I mentioned in an earlier thread, the planning assumptions of Iceberg were that the western port of Nada would fall by 30 April 1945 allowing the closure of the Hagushi Beach roadstead. This would allow Phase II combat ops to use beach lighterage .

4/
This didn't work out for a lot of reasons, starting with the decision by General Geiger of III Marine Amphibious Corps to dash across Okinawa to the East coast.
5/
And how that action -- which "put them 11 days ahead of plan" -- left the Hagushi beach head uncovered with land-based AA guns to the North East for Kamikaze's to flow in on 6 April 1945.
6/
Followed by a friendly fire disaster that ravaged the fuel unloading infrastructure for Yontan & Kadena air fields. The huge Kikusui (“Floating Chrysanthemums”) Operation No. 1 on 6-7 Apr 1945...
7/
...resulted in an operational decision to accelerate Phase II operation Northern Okinawa & Ie Shima for radar & airfield sites respectively.

This hit beach unloading capacity, hard, as the USMC III Amph. Corps removed it's vehicles supporting beach clearance to head North.
8/
Unit for unit USMC units had less vehicles than the US Army. The 6th Marine Division's 55 mile run to the north required a new beach head at Nago village on the Motubu peninsula. Maj. Gen. Lemuel C. Shepherd, Jr. had to post his HQ there to know his daily logistical status.
9/
The Nago beach head was kept open until early May 1945 supporting 6th Mar. Div. operations in eliminating IJA Colonel Takehiko Udo's reinforced 2nd Btn, 44th Independent Mixed Brigade at Yae-Take.

The problem was that Gen Shepherd wore out his supporting LVT's going this.
10/
LVT's in WW2 were wasting assets. The tracks lasted about 100 miles on land, plus transmissions wore out quickly as they were overloaded & underpowered.
They were good for about 100-120 miles on land before their powertrain was automotive junk needing deep overhaul.
11/
Okinawa was the 1st operation for USMC LVT-3's. The dash to the north on the ground was not in the original Iceberg plan.

A two-division amphibious landing was supposed to accomplish this. That the shipping to do this would not be available wasn't known until Feb 1945.
12/
These late changing plans -- & the lack of USMC/USN staff officers due to the actions of Gen Oliver P. Smith in removing them -- meant the USMC LVT-3's simply lacked the enough spare parts.

See Note 26 from Victory & Occupation Chapter II-9 (photo)
12/

Given 200 of the 461 USMC LVT-3's were sidelined by a lack of spares from over use in Apr 1945.

The USMC idea of a end around invasion at Minatoga a' la landing plan Baker was a "blame the dead guy for not executing an option your decisions made impossible" pipe dream.
13/
The upshot of the burn out of the 6th Mar. Div. burn out of their LVT-3's was the need to place additional beach heads at the Machinato & Asa Gawa inlets on 19 & 26 May respectively to deliver artillery ammunition, fuel & food to USMC units.
14/
The manpower to do this came from two decisions. The first was to close down the northern (USMC) landing beaches at the Hagushi roadstead.

The second came as a result a May 16th decision by General Buckner regards the onloading of US Army Victory class ammunition ships.
15/
All artillery ammunition for ground forces at Okinawa would be unloaded in the Marianas and transshipped to LST's to land over Okinawa beaches.

Essentially Gen. Buckner, with Adm. Nimitz's support, was stealing beach clearance capability from the 20th Army Air Force to
16/
...to support his troops on Okinawa.

That this started impact Gen LeMay's B-29 force the week after the 20th AF stopped dropping bombs on Kyushu Kamikaze bases was no accident.

The 2015 paper by Evan Isaac - "Operation ICEBERG: How the Strategic Influenced the Tactics
17/
...of LTG Simon Bolivar Buckner Jr. at Okinawa" is the 'go to' of modern academic scholarship on General Buckner's logistical nightmares during the planning & execution of Operation Iceberg.

See link:
etd.auburn.edu/bitstream/hand…
18/
That the US Navy SOPA (Senior Officer Present Afloat) would protected a USN amphibious combatants carrying US Army Artillery ammunition at Okinawa anchorages...but not merchant crewed Victory ships...was also 'not an accident.'
It was central to Buckner's May 16th decision.
19/
US Navy SOPA protected its AE, AKE & LST ships with Navy ammo at Okinawa.

US Army ammo ships SS Logan Victory and SS Hobbs Victory (photo) on 6 Apr 1945 plus SS Canada Victory on 27 Apr 1945 were all "cargos doomed to boom" if given to USN protection.
20/
kamikazeimages.net/stories/hobbsv…
The US Army only called forward SS Berea Victory with Army artillery shells on May 27th when they had a XXIVth Corps ammo control point at Yonabaru to unload and protect her at, rather than at the beach at Nakagusuku Bay the USN SOPA controlled.
21/
wikiwand.com/en/SS_Berea_Vi…
It is a military truism that "no plan survived contact with the enemy."

It wasn't Gen. Buckner's enemies, as this pre-invasion Tenth Army planning document shows, who destroyed his beach clearance capability at Okinawa.

It was the actions of his USMC & USN allies.
/END

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Trent Telenko

Trent Telenko Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @TrentTelenko

Aug 19
I've gotten a lot of comments on this thread here and via DM. I'm going to share one from a Cold War gray beard on the engine that powers the FP-5.

"FP-5 is around 4 x Tomahawk in mass.

FP-5 Engine🧵
...With a similar configuration, drag will not be dominated by lift induced wing drag but will form drag which is typical for 500 knots air speed jets and missiles with low aspect ratio wings.

2/
...So a rule of thumb estimate is that you will need around 4 x the thrust of a Tomahawk F107-WR-402 700 lbf (3.1 kN) engine for an FP-5 Flamingo GLCM.

3/
Read 7 tweets
Aug 19
Slowly, with a lot of notice, Trump is morphing into Pres. Biden

This territorial concession malarkey is exactly what the Biden Administration was playing games with in Nov 2021 via an op-ed by Samuel Charap of RAND in the Nov 19, 2021 Politico.

1/
That Op-Ed advocated, in effect, that the US abandon Ukraine to Russia in exchange for other concessions by Russia, greenlighting Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

It was understood in Nov. 2021 era DC that Charap...


2/rand.org/pubs/commentar…
...was Jake Sullivan's totem animal for surfacing ideas of "de-escalation" with Russia.

Former Estonian President Ilves and Prof Stephan Blank utterly shredded the Charap/Sullivan thought balloon.

Seeing Trump revive that Charap/Sullivan thought ballon now is sickening🤮

3/3 Image
Read 4 tweets
Aug 18
The issue for Russia with the FP-5 is that its range makes Russian national air defense practically impossible.

Ukraine can reach facilities on the other side of the Urals and north to Murmansk with the FP-5.

Once Ukrainian drones overwhelm a border SAM battery sector.

1/ Image
FP-5's sent through the drone peak saturation area can 'squirt through into a great empty' low at high subsonic speeds.

Only an AWACS with late production SU-30 with look down/shoot down PESA radars can deal with them.

H/T @DrnBmbr
2/ Image
Furthermore, FP-5's are going to have electronic counter measures (ECM) and counter-countermeasures (ECCM) installed as standard.

The FP-5 will have at least a 24 element CRPA element layout to beat GPS jamming...

3/
Read 5 tweets
Aug 12
Pres Zelenskyy of Ukraine just made an interesting statement:

"Let me give an example from yesterday, roughly like this: the Russians suffer about a thousand losses per day — that’s 500 killed and 500 wounded.

1/
I’m not even counting the 10 prisoners and so on. More precisely, 968 losses for Russia: 531 killed, 428 wounded, and 9 captured.

We had 340 losses in one day: 18 killed, 243 wounded, and 79 missing in action," he said."

2/
500 Russian KIA versus 18 Ukrainian KIA is a 29.5 to one ratio in favor of Ukraine.

Total Russian casualties of 1,000 versus 340 Ukrainian is a 2.9 to one ratio in favor of Ukraine.

3/
Read 5 tweets
Aug 12
Actually, the Soviet Union in the "Great Patriotic War" did suffer worse casualties and win.

It is that fact which powers the "Russian WW2 exceptionalism" myth that Putin used to zombify Russians over 20 years to make suicidal assaults over and over again.

1/
I said something like what Chuck just said about Russian casualties in July 2024.

Chuck now, like I did then, underestimates how powerful cultural conditioning is in making armies able to take horrific losses and continue.

2/
As long a Putin's propaganda keeps Russians believing they are winning by taking miniscule slivers of Ukrainian land.

The Russians will keep coming.

It doesn't mean Russia will win. It means Russia is paying a disproportionate blood debt which will have to be paid.

3/
Read 17 tweets
Aug 11
The map below underlines a real innumeracy issue with lots of Western analysts of Ukraine's OWA drone strategic bombing campaign.

BLUF: 40,000/52 weeks is ~769 Ukrainian OWA drones launched a week on average for the whole year.

Ukrainian OWA Drone🧵
1/
Historic war mobilization production curves are heavily back loaded.

That is, the production rates of B-17's and B-24's bombers in the 3rd quarter of 1943 versus the 3rd quarter of 1944 showed a much higher production rate in late 1944.

2/ Image
Image
We are mid-way through the 3rd quarter of the 2025 where Ukraine's OWA drone annual production goal was 40,000.

Ukraine should be around 850-950 OWA drones a week in August 2025 and will be close to 1,200 a week in the 4th qtr. of the 2025.

3/
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(