The Americans had developed a strong tendency to telegraph their punches. In the morning, before an assault by the infantry, the artillery pounded the Japanese positions, after which the mortars opened up. The mortar fire nearly always lasted for a half hour, and then the infantry moved out. Upon occasion, the infantry did not attack immediately after the preparation by the supporting weapons. This delay gave the Japanese time and opportunity to regroup and consolidate their forces, and thus nullified the effects of the preparatory fires.
Parenthetically, it may be remarked that although the actual casualties per artillery shell were few, the cumulative effect of the heavy and prolonged fire of the artillery and mortars was very great. Col. Junkichi Okabayashi, chief of staff of the Japanese 1st Division, estimated that the losses sustained by the division were distributed as follows: by artillery, 60 percent; by mortars, 25 percent; by infantry fire, 14 percent; and by aircraft, 1 percent.[2]
The employment of tanks singly, or in small groups, materially aided the infantrymen, since the tanks could be used effectively to reduce enemy pillboxes and to flush out bamboo thickets. Although light tanks were more mobile it was found that the mediums were more efficient in reducing pillboxes. For successful employment, it was necessary that the tanks have close infantry and engineer support. In some instances the tanks secured objectives when no infantrymen were present to consolidate and hold the positions. For example, a regiment supported by a tank battalion received orders to attack and secure an objective. The tanks quickly moved out and secured the objective with little resistance. Since the infantrymen did not arrive during the day, the tanks withdrew at nightfall. During the night the Japanese mined the area and four of the tanks were lost when they returned next morning.
Likewise, tanks were often disabled because the engineers had failed to remove mines and give support in the crossing of streams. In one case, the engineers failed to repair a bridge, which collapsed after three tanks had crossed over it. The Japanese completely destroyed one of the tanks and disabled the other two. It was necessary for the Americans to destroy the disabled tanks with their own gunfire in order to prevent their use as stationary pillboxes by the enemy.
It was found advantageous to establish a night perimeter before dusk. An early establishment of the perimeter enabled the troops to take effective countermeasures against Japanese infiltrations and night assaults.[3] The soldiers also had an opportunity to become familiar with their surroundings and were less likely to fire indiscriminately during the night. In spite of this precaution, there was considerable promiscuous firing during the night and at dawn. One corps commander effectively stopped this practice in his command post area by the adoption of two simple measures. First, he employed a reserve battalion to cover an area extending outward for one mile and when no Japanese were found the fact was announced over the loudspeaker. Second, any man caught firing before dawn was immediately court-martialed and fined fifty dollars. “There was very little promiscuous firing thereafter.”[4]
Although there were three war-dog platoons available for the Leyte operation, their combat value was practically nil. The unit commanders to whom they were attached knew little of their capabilities or limitations. Some expected the dogs to spot a Japanese position exactly at a distance of 200 or more yards. One unit took the dogs on a four-day patrol without sufficient dog rations. Another unit attempted to use dogs in a populated area; the presence of so many civilians thoroughly confused the dogs.
In general, the troops found that their training had been sound and that the methods which in the past had been employed in overcoming the Japanese were also useful on Leyte. It was felt, however, that greater emphasis in training should be placed on night patrols and night movements near the enemy lines, as well as on closer co-ordination between the infantry and the supporting weapons. Finally, it was believed that the service troops should be given training in basic infantry tactics and prepared to maintain their own defenses.[5]
All units were in agreement that there could be “no substitute for aggressive leadership.”[6] An infantry unit could be no better than its leaders. General Krueger said in this connection:
Infantry is the arm of close combat. It is the arm of final combat. The Jap is usually most tenacious particularly when in entrenched and concealed positions. Individual enemy soldiers will remain in their holes until eliminated. Although the supporting arms are of great assistance, it ultimately becomes the task of the small infantry units to dig them out. The American soldier has demonstrated on many battlefields that he can and will do it, but he must be aggressively led. There can be no hesitating on the part of his leaders.[7]