Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
MacArthur for some reason left his Air Force on the ground, where it was destroyed.
Battle of the Philippines finds MacArthur unprepared
How is the war impacted if MacArthur launches a strike against the IJAF aircraft awaiting for the fog to clear on Formosa? Presumably the B-17s won't see through the fog.
Why wasn't MacArthur tossed after this screw up? Peacetime commanders with arguably less culpability such as Rear Admiral Kimmel and Lieutenant General Short were recalled to Washington and retired.There would probably be some reallocation of fighter resources to reduce the impact of a second strike, but the more important issue may have been some indication that MacArthur was actually willing to, oh, listen to what he was being told about the imminence of a concerted military attack instead of ignoring the possibility.
He must have been. After fleeing to Australia he was made commander of all US land forces.I'm surprised that General MacArthur wasn't tossed for that as well. Perhaps he was politically well connected.
Definitely better use of equipment than letting these planes be destroyed on the ground.Vision down thru fog is often not to bad . lots of landing accidents caused by pilots
thinking vision was good enough to land only to find once they where in it forward vision
was bad
So maybe the bombers can be effective maybe not
Either I read it or someone mentioned to me years ago that US needed heroes. The General was manufactured to be one.He must have been. After fleeing to Australia he was made commander of all US land forces.
He must have been. After fleeing to Australia he was made commander of all US land forces.
MacArthur was retired from US Army, after being Chief of Staff before George Marshal. He was actually employed as advisor to the Phillipine armed forces, though he tended to act like their commander, and the Philipino troops worshipped him. Relations between MacArthur and Marshall (and the rest of the active US Army) could be described as strained at best.Why wasn't MacArthur tossed after this screw up? Peacetime commanders with arguably less culpability such as Rear Admiral Kimmel and Lieutenant General Short were recalled to Washington and retired.
IDK, isn't anyone who doesn't leave his entire Air Force on the ground to be destroyed hours after Pearl Harbour a better choice, just about anyone?I'm not a MacArthur admirer, but maybe they thought they needed someone with enough seniority and familiar with the local situation to take over immediately.
They didn't have the time to pick the perfect man and get him there.
The fog cleared sufficiently for the IJAF to launch their strike, right about the same time that the B-17s should be overhead.Definitely better use of equipment than letting these planes be destroyed on the ground.
MacArthur was retired from US Army, after being Chief of Staff before George Marshal. He was actually employed as advisor to the Phillipine armed forces, though he tended to act like their commander, and the Philipino troops worshipped him. Relations between MacArthur and Marshall (and the rest of the active US Army) could be described as strained at best.
At some point before Pearl Harbor he was called back into US service by FDR, as he was a highly experienced and knowledgeable "Asia hand". I have read of friction between MacArthur and some of the much younger USAAC officers that arrived with the B17s and P40s. There's been speculation that he didn't believe the Japanese on Formosa had the range to reach him, and he didn't want to provoke a visit by an IJN carrier strike force.
MacArthur and FDR went back a long ways (WWI and before), and a heave-ho from Roosevelt wasn't going to happen.
So your recommended option is to leave them on the ground to be destroyed on day one? Perhaps instead, if the FEAF is deemed ineffective we should at least consider dispersing the aircraft?First of all, people seem to forget that the FEAF in the Philippines was a small force....we need to be realistic and ask how effective this bomber force would have been both in limited numbers, lack of experience as well as survivability.
The question of the USAAC fighter's effectiveness..versus the Japanese needs to be looked at as well.
I'm surprised that General MacArthur wasn't tossed for that as well. Perhaps he was politically well connected. That's not my area of expertise.