51396
Post by: Tadashi
What if...in the improbable but not impossible event...that Japan uses superior tactics and technology (which they had) to win the Pacific War, then switched sides and replaces the defeated USA among the Allies, defeats the Nazis, creating an alternate world where instead of having the USSR and the USA as twin superpowers, we have three: Britain of the Atlantic, Japan of the Pacific, and USSR of Northern Eurasia.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Read up on Harry Turtledove 
51396
Post by: Tadashi
I just did...turned out my mom had the first book, Day of Infamy...but I still prefer the Japanese OVA Konpeki no Kantai, upon which this is based, and whose DVDs I acquired a year ago.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Wait how exactly would Japan defeat the USA?
50512
Post by: Jihadin
If I remember correctly they landed on Hawaii.
221
Post by: Frazzled
And? Thats just makes Japan much more radioactive in late 1945 and early 1946. The US built 29 Essex class carriers in WWII and 9 independence class carriers. We built 12,000 hellcats, and 12,000 corsairs alone, not to mention 7,800 wildcats. Thats just the Navy. The moment they attacked the US they signed their collective death warrant. Ancient Budha say: never get involved in a land war in Asia and never  with the US Navy.
25220
Post by: WarOne
From a non novel standpoint, if the USA had lost more of its fleet and the Japanese had more resources to threaten other naval assets of the USA, the war would of been a moot point in the Pacific. An invasion of mainland America would of be improbable, and it could of been likely the United States would of conceded the Pacific War, at the very least a standstill.
37585
Post by: Wyrmalla
No Nazis? Hmph, and here's me about to start reading Hitler's War.... 
50512
Post by: Jihadin
I enjoyed the one with the alien invasion durinng WWII. Was a good read
221
Post by: Frazzled
 WarOne wrote:
From a non novel standpoint, if the USA had lost more of its fleet and the Japanese had more resources to threaten other naval assets of the USA, the war would of been a moot point in the Pacific. An invasion of mainland America would of be improbable, and it could of been likely the United States would of conceded the Pacific War, at the very least a standstill.
When has the US conceded anything when attacked?  Automatically Appended Next Post: Now a history without the Nazis would be interesting. Does someone else similarly replace them, do they go communist?
Rememberman military was looking for someone they ould support to rebuild the Fatherland's military. If not Hitler they would have likely found someone else, maybe not so crazy.
53002
Post by: Tibbsy
Disclaimer - I know little about the Pacific war, my interest is more the European theatre, more specifically the events in Normandy. But I will give this a shot anyway.
I don't think that would work. At all...
Firstly, I'm not certain whether they had more advanced technology at the time, although I doubt it. Japanese armoured vehicles of the time were usually considered inferior to their American counterparts. I think they had decent aircraft, but I know practically nothing about that, so I will leave that for more educated minds. As well as superior vehicles in general, the US also had a much larger manufacturing base, and one that was virtually safe from attack. (I believe the M4 Sherman is the most widely produced tank of the war, if not in history - Not certain though.) The US was able to bring far more men and machines to the battle. Remember that they were also fighting through Normandy and France as well, and still had reserves enough to keep both the Western and Pacific fronts manned and equipped. The Japanese just wouldn't have the resources available to compete with the US.
I know Italy changed sides late in the war, but the Japanese mindset just wouldn't allow them to. The Italian people were generally against the war, and when Mussolini was overthrown after the Allies invaded, support for the war vanished and the Italians changed sides. The Japanese were pretty much die-hard fight-to-the-last types.
I hope that made sense... Again, these are parts of the war I have little knowledge of - if I've slipped up on anything let me know
EDIT: Got ninja'd by about 10 people 
21720
Post by: LordofHats
You'd have to do some pretty radical alterations to make Japan winning the Pacific War probable. Resource disparity between Japan and the US is just too high and being tied down in China really sucked up more of those limited resources.
EDIT: I'll also add the idea of Japan switching sides is, highly unlikely. They grew really close to the Germans in the 30's after Britain 'stabbed' them in the back and stopped supporting the Imperial Navy's training program. Plus, the Commonwealth remained an obstacle to Japanese expansion in Asia, USA or not USA.
I think they had decent aircraft
Barring that they actually stole the Zero's design from Howard Hughes, they had awesome planes overall. Problem was that like their navy, they just couldn't build them fast enough to the point they were making planes out of wood and paper. A big problem was also the use of veteran pilots, consolidating them into units with themselves. As these units dwindled in numbers, there was no one around to teach green pilots to fly. EDIT: My bad. They took the design of the Zero from Chance Vought, not Hughes. That's what I get for watching the Aviator last week 
I believe the M4 Sherman is the most widely produced tank of the war, if not in history - Not certain though.
T-34. Sherman #2 though
53002
Post by: Tibbsy
Thanks for the corrections LoH
221
Post by: Frazzled
 Tadashi wrote:What if...in the improbable but not impossible event...that Japan uses superior tactics and technology (which they had) to win the Pacific War, then switched sides and replaces the defeated USA among the Allies, defeats the Nazis, creating an alternate world where instead of having the USSR and the USA as twin superpowers, we have three: Britain of the Atlantic, Japan of the Pacific, and USSR of Northern Eurasia.
This is the same Japan that had an ongoing war with Britain correct? The Japan attacked the French and Dutch, and the one the Soviets kept 30 divisions in the East to watch for?
I think a better alternate is what if Latin America gets involved or what if Japan never attacks the US but attacks everything else?
51396
Post by: Tadashi
1) Yamamoto successfully lobbies for the construction of advanced battleships and super-carriers, a secret fleet of nuclear-powered submarine carriers, and a covert mass production of advanced combat aircraft in the years prior to the war. 2) Once the Pearl Harbor Task Force has left, Yamamoto, the other admirals, and the moderate army generals launch a coup and seize control - Japanese troops are withdrawn from the mainland except for Korea, lulling the Americans into a false sense that Yamamoto is more cooperative. 3) Pearl Harbor is a complete Japanese victory: the first wave sinks all American ships in the harbor - the entire battleship fleet, half of the cruiser fleet, and one-quarter of the destroyer fleet - and the entire combat aviation wing on the islands, but the second wave destroys the oil depot, the military headquarters, the naval yard, the power plant, and the submarine base with two-thirds of the submarine fleet - including the naval intelligence assets in the basement, rendering the USN blind and deaf in the Pacific. 4) The Japanese regroup, then ambush the three Pacific carriers racing back to Pearl Harbor - after which Hawaii is occupied. The USN is effectively emasculated and is forced to withdraw to the West Coast. 5) Japan overruns the West Pacific, granting independence to all European and American colonial possessions, but do not impose governments or garrisons - except in New Guinea, to draw the Americans into the South Pacific. 6) Japan ambushes four carriers diverted from the Atlantic in the Tasman Sea and the Torres Strait, destroying them all and ensuring uncontested control of the Pacific. 7) Submarine carriers destroy the Panama Canal, then Los Alamos, preventing the Americans from bringing anymore ships from the Atlantic, and setting their nuclear research back by ten years (whereas the Japanese already have nuclear-powered subs). 8) Roosevelt dies from a shock-induced heart attack, and Truman opens peace negotiations. 9) Germany declares war on Japan, who respond by using inter-continental flying boat bombers to destroy German nuclear research facilities in Nuremberg, setting back their nuclear research by ten years as well. 10) Germany invades India - in exchange for assistance in India and repatriation of European POWs, the British and the European Allies make peace with Japan, who send troops to India together with a fleet in the Indian Ocean. America, in an effort to regain hope in the war effort, begins bombing German convoys in the East Atlantic. 11) Japan secretly leaks strategically-vital Soviet intelligence to the Germans - Germans win at Stalingrad and Petrograd, Russians retreat, Stalin commits suicide and Germany gains control over the Soviet industrial heartland - all to force the Western Allies to overcommit. 12) America invades Brittany Peninsula but are driven into the sea by the Germans - as planned, the failed war effort throws America back into isolationism, but peace negotiations with Japan continue. 13) Operation Sealion - Germany invades and occupies Southern England. 14) Japan's carriers destroy German command centers across India as the submarine carriers cut off troops and supplies passing through the Straits of Bab- el-Mandeb, allowing British-Japanese forces to check German advance in India. Trotsky becomes Premier with Japanese support. 15) Nationalist Chinese forces repel German attempt to break the Indian deadlock with a flank attack through Xinjiang Province. A German strike at Washington DC catalyzes successful negotiations with Japan - Hawaii is returned with US POWs, and Japan sends a fleet into the Pacific. 16) Soviet-Japanese forces defeat the Germans in Mongolia, and British-Japanese forces achieve complete control over the Atlantic. 17) As the European Allies assemble troops to drive the Germans off the British Isles, Japan's Atlantic Fleet destroys strategic German assets across Western Europe. 18) Hitler's Bavarian HQ is destroyed by Japanese commandos, and the counter-offensive begins - Japanese support proves critical. 19) With Britain 'liberated', peace negotiations with Germany begin. Germany retains Poland, the Baltic States, and Alsace-Lorraine. The Jews return to Israel. 20) As Hitler vows revenge, Japan withdraws to the Pacific to prepare for a new war in a few decades... EDIT: this is basically the condensed plot for Konpeki no Kantai, and I had looked over by my maternal grandfather (a retired Philippine Army general) and my maternal uncle (an intelligence lieutenant-colonel in the Philippine Army) - the response: difficult, but not impossible. If the real life Japanese had done this, nothing could have stopped them.
221
Post by: Frazzled
1) Yamamoto successfully lobbies for the construction of advanced battleships and super-carriers, a secret fleet of nuclear-powered submarine carriers, and a covert mass production of combat aircraft in the years prior to the war.
***As the first nuclear powered vessels didn’t come into service until the 1950s that’s way out there.
The Japanese already had very advanced battleships and super carriers. US battleships just had better fire control systems and radar. Carriers, well in the words of the immortal bard: “We better than you. “
2) Once the Pearl Harbor Task Force has left, Yamamoto, the other admirals, and the moderate army generals launch a coup and seize control - Japanese troops are withdrawn from the mainland except for Korea, lulling the Americans into a false sense that Yamamoto is more cooperative.
***Once you attack Pearl harbor we amazingly wouldn’t give a gak. Nuke clock starts at 4 years and counting when the first toredo bomber lifts off.
3) Pearl Harbor is a complete Japanese victory: the first wave sinks all American ships in the harbor - the entire battleship fleet, half of the cruiser fleet, and one-quarter of the destroyer fleet - and the entire combat aviation wing on the islands, but the second wave destroys the oil depot, the military headquarters, the naval yard, the power plant, and the submarine base with two-thirds of the submarine fleet - including the naval intelligence assets in the basement, rendering the USN blind and deaf in the Pacific.
***So what? That gives you six months. That just means we make more nukes. More of Japan gets radiated.
4) The Japanese regroup, then ambush the three Pacific carriers racing back to Pearl Harbor - after which Hawaii is occupied. The USN is effectively emasculated and is forced to withdraw to the West Coast.
***So what? Assume everything goes swimmingly. Nuke clock starts at 4 years and counting. What part of ‘the US built 29 carriers’ (not counting little escort carriers) is not clear to you? And that’s assuming the US doesn’t say “Sorry Europe we’re focusing on Japan first.”
5) Japan overruns the West Pacific, granting independence to all European and American colonial possessions, but do not impose governments or garrisons - except in New Guinea, to draw the Americans into the South Pacific.
***Japan did that, well they conquered them anyway. The slaughter of the native population continued until US, UK, and Kriekie! Aussies armed with drop bears and 5 inch crocodile cannons drove them out.
6) Japan ambushes four carriers diverted from the Atlantic in the Tasman Sea and the Torres Strait, destroying them all and ensuring uncontested control of the Pacific.
***Unless you’re brilliant you’ll take casualties at about 1:1 (Coral Sea). Again, 29 carriers, a sub fleet that will strangle you utterly, and something called the B29 means its not going to go well for you. Note: Japanese didn’t start getting radar until mid 1943 which means you’re at a strategic disadvantage.
7) Submarine carriers destroy the Panama Canal, then Los Alamos, preventing the Americans from bringing anymore ships from the Atlantic, and setting their nuclear research back by ten years (whereas the Japanese already have nuclear-powered subs).
****Los Alamos is in New Mexico. Besides b eing the devil’s donkey-cave, it means its out of range of anything Japan/Germany/well anyone but the US can get to.
8) Roosevelt dies from a shock-induced heart attack, and Truman opens peace negotiations.
***Truman nuked Japan. Besides Patton or MaCarthur, he’s on the top ten list of Americans least likely to open peace negotiations.
9) Germany declares war on Japan, who respond by using inter-continental flying boat bombers to destroy German nuclear research facilities in Nuremberg, setting back their nuclear research by ten years as well.
***That won’t work. The Nazis have already developed Ubermensch using nuclear powered VWs with Nazi ray guns.
10) Germany invades India - in exchange for assistance in India and repatriation of European POWs, the British and the European Allies make peace with Japan, who send troops to India together with a fleet in the Indian Ocean. America, in an effort to regain hope in the war effort, begins bombing German convoys in the East Atlantic.
***Why? Although Indian food is excellent, this would sully Aryan taste buds and pollute the Thousand Year Reich’s cuisine with untermensch foodstuffs.
11) Japan secretly leaks strategically-vital Soviet intelligence to the Germans - Germans win at Stalingrad and Petrograd, Russians retreat, Stalin commits suicide and Germany gains control over the Soviet industrial heartland - all to force the Western Allies to overcommit.
***Not one step backwards Comrade! The Japanese didn’t know bupkiss about the USSR. The USSR, however had an excellent spy network in Japan.
12) America invades Brittany Peninsula but are driven into the sea by the Germans - as planned, the failed war effort throws America back into isolationism, but peace negotiations with Japan continue.
***not if John Wayne and Audie Murphy have anything to say about it they aren’t. Plus like Yellowbeard, us Americans are never more dangerous than when we’re dead.
13) Operation Sealion - Germany invades and occupies Southern England.
***We will fight them on the beaches. We will fight them in the pubs. We will fight them in the que for the morning paper.
14) Japan's carriers destroy German command centers across India as the submarine carriers cut off troops and supplies passing through the Straits of Bab-el-Mandeb, allowing British-Japanese forces to check German advance in India. Trotsky becomes Premier with Japanese support.
***Since Trotsky was killed by Stalin’s agents in 1940, this must be Zombie Trotsky. That would indeed be disconcerting.
15) Nationalist Chinese forces repel German attempt to break the Indian deadlock with a flank attack through Xinjiang Province. A German strike at Washington DC catalyzes successful negotiations with Japan - Hawaii is returned with US POWs, and Japan sends a fleet into the Pacific.
***Weren’t they busy fighting the Japanese? I guess if they were involved then the US 20th Air Force would be bombing Germany too in er India er what???
16) Soviet-Japanese forces defeat the Germans in Mongolia, and British-Japanese forces achieve complete control over the Atlantic.
***The Germans are in Mongolia? Man talking about taking the wrong turn at Albequerche…
17) As the European Allies assemble troops to drive the Germans off the British Isles, Japan's Atlantic Fleet destroys strategic German assets across Western Europe.
***I hope they brought their robot suits and Godzilla. I hear MechaHitler was a 50 foot badass who could fire Tiger Tanks at you!
18) Hitler's Bavarian HQ is destroyed by Japanese commandos, and the counter-offensive begins - Japanese support proves critical.
***Finish Him! Maximum Fatality!
19) With Britain 'liberated', peace negotiations with Germany begin. Germany retains Poland, the Baltic States, and Alsace-Lorraine. The Jews return to Israel.
***And thus begins the Mideast wars. Can’t we learn from Britain’s mistakes?
20) As Hitler vows revenge, Japan withdraws to the Pacific to prepare for a new war in a few decades...
***Careful Japan! I hear the Nazis are building a base on the Moon!
29408
Post by: Melissia
WarOne wrote:An invasion of mainland America would of be improbable
Impossible, actually. Japan's population did not support the number of troops needed for any serious conquering of the USA. They'd have trouble just conquering California, and half the country would be glad to give it to them.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
@Frazzled Well, seeing as professional and career soldiers consider it as feasible, I'd say everything you said is moot.
29408
Post by: Melissia
The voice talking to you while you lay in your bed at night, alone, is NOT a professional soldier.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 Melissia wrote:The voice talking to you while you lay in your bed at night, alone, is NOT a professional soldier.
My dogs tell me to do things. Bad things.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Melissia wrote:The voice talking to you while you lay in your bed at night, alone, is NOT a professional soldier.
Voice? What voice? Whoever mentioned voices? 
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Tadashi wrote:1) Yamamoto successfully lobbies for the construction of advanced battleships and super-carriers, a secret fleet of nuclear-powered submarine carriers, and a covert mass production of advanced combat aircraft in the years prior to the war.
Yamamoto was opposed to battleships. He lobbied for an air arm believing that the age of the Battleship was over (and he was right). Unfortunately, even had he succeeded, it's unlikely Japan could have built very many carriers. They just didn't have the resources, and they had more carriers going into WWII than anyone and a larger fleet by tonnage than the US navy.
2) Once the Pearl Harbor Task Force has left, Yamamoto, the other admirals, and the moderate army generals launch a coup and seize control - Japanese troops are withdrawn from the mainland except for Korea, lulling the Americans into a false sense that Yamamoto is more cooperative.
Yamamoto was not a moderate. And this was attempted. Several times actually. EDIT: It's actually kind of a theme with Imperial Japan. There was an attempted Coup two or three times a decade.
3) Pearl Harbor is a complete Japanese victory: the first wave sinks all American ships in the harbor - the entire battleship fleet, half of the cruiser fleet, and one-quarter of the destroyer fleet - and the entire combat aviation wing on the islands, but the second wave destroys the oil depot, the military headquarters, the naval yard, the power plant, and the submarine base with two-thirds of the submarine fleet - including the naval intelligence assets in the basement, rendering the USN blind and deaf in the Pacific.
While probable in a highly theoretical sense, the impact of such a thing were it to pass is highly debatable. The US by 1943, had 6x the tonnage of the Imperial Navy, not to mention an actual oil supply. The US would have replaced anything lost within two years and been back, at which point Japan would have gained no considerable advantage.
4) The Japanese regroup, then ambush the three Pacific carriers racing back to Pearl Harbor - after which Hawaii is occupied. The USN is effectively emasculated and is forced to withdraw to the West Coast.
Impossible. Japan would have been completely incapable of seizing Hawaii, leaving the USN no reason to withdraw to the West Coast.
5) Japan overruns the West Pacific, granting independence to all European and American colonial possessions, but do not impose governments or garrisons - except in New Guinea, to draw the Americans into the South Pacific.
Japan did this. It actually didn't help them at all, because the South Pacific is nearly completely devoid (at this time, and to a degree even now) of any meaningful resources beyond a very decent oil supply that Britain is fully capable of attacking from Burma and India. In the end, taking the South Pacific didn't really do much for Japan.
6) Japan ambushes four carriers diverted from the Atlantic in the Tasman Sea and the Torres Strait, destroying them all and ensuring uncontested control of the Pacific.
7) Submarine carriers destroy the Panama Canal,
Japan would never do that. No one would, least of all 'moderate' generals and admirals. Also, while recent historians have suggest Japan was closer to the atomic bomb than is traditionally believe, they had absolutely no access to radioactive materials sizable enough to do anything. They would never have achieved atomic ability, let alone the ability to create a nuclear reactor.
8) Roosevelt dies from a shock-induced heart attack, and Truman opens peace negotiations.
Umm... Truman? Peace negotiations? He's the guy who dropped the bomb.
9) Germany declares war on Japan, who respond by using inter-continental flying boat bombers to destroy German nuclear research facilities in Nuremberg, setting back their nuclear research by ten years as well.
Germany would never do this, given the Axis pact and the ties between the German and Japanese navies. Japan liked Germany, and Germany was at least in a sense that there was no need to have Japan as an enemy. While it's true Japan toyed with submersible aircraft carriers, they held two planes. Even today, it is completely infeasible to build a submarine able to launch a meaningful amount of aircraft. There just isn't a point to it, not to mention the vulnerability of such a ship to attack and mechanical complexity of making it work.
10) Germany invades India - in exchange for assistance in India and repatriation of European POWs, the British and the European Allies make peace with Japan, who send troops to India together with a fleet in the Indian Ocean. America, in an effort to regain hope in the war effort, begins bombing German convoys in the East Atlantic.
How on earth is Germany gonna get to India? Also, what convoys in the East Atlantic? Germany has no need to send any ships through that ocean, let alone would the US be able to airstrike them.
11) Japan secretly leaks strategically-vital Soviet intelligence to the Germans - Germans win at Stalingrad and Petrograd, Russians retreat, Stalin commits suicide and Germany gains control over the Soviet industrial heartland - all to force the Western Allies to overcommit.
If Japan is at war with Germany, why are they helping them in a war they can't possibly win?
13) Operation Sealion - Germany invades and occupies Southern England.
With what Navy do they achieve this feat? Especially if they've somehow manage to get all the way to India, while still at war with Russia?
14) Japan's carriers destroy German command centers across India as the submarine carriers cut off troops and supplies passing through the Straits of Bab-el-Mandeb, allowing British-Japanese forces to check German advance in India. Trotsky becomes Premier with Japanese support.
Trotsky? The guy who was kicked out of Russia in 1928 and who lost all his supporters in the great purge?
15) Nationalist Chinese forces repel German attempt to break the Indian deadlock with a flank attack through Xinjiang Province. A German strike at Washington DC catalyzes successful negotiations with Japan - Hawaii is returned with US POWs, and Japan sends a fleet into the Pacific.
How is Germany attacking China now?
16) Soviet-Japanese forces defeat the Germans in Mongolia, and British-Japanese forces achieve complete control over the Atlantic.
How did they ever not have it?
EDIT: this is basically the condensed plot for Konpeki no Kantai, and I had looked over by my maternal grandfather (a retired Philippine Army general) and my maternal uncle (an intelligence lieutenant-colonel in the Philippine Army) - the response: difficult, but not impossible. If the real life Japanese had done this, nothing could have stopped them.
While as a piece of fiction it might be interesting, I'm kind of confused as to what relevance it at all has to reality. The amount of things that would need to be changed to make this scenario remotely plausible, are infinite. It's impossible for events to have turned out this way. Especially considering that Konpeki no Kanta was written by a Japanese hyper-nationalist who really wanted to stroke Japan's ego while having a poor understanding of why WWII even happened, or what Japan was like at the time. Its fiction. Suggesting it could actually happen is kind of outlandish.
27391
Post by: purplefood
This would be an interesting debate if the events leading up to it weren't so contrived and ridiculous...
51396
Post by: Tadashi
 LordofHats wrote: While as a piece of fiction it might be interesting, I'm kind of confused as to what relevance it at all has to reality. The amount of things that would need to be changed to make this scenario remotely plausible, are infinite. It's impossible for events to have turned out this way. Especially considering that Konpeki no Kanta was written by a Japanese hyper-nationalist who really wanted to stroke Japan's ego while having a poor understanding of why WWII even happened, or what Japan was like at the time. Its fiction. Suggesting it could actually happen is kind of outlandish.
Hence the professionals saying it as not impossible, but very difficult to achieve in reality - and not to the same extent as presented. But if done, Japan could have forced a negotiated peace on America and the Allies.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Tadashi wrote:@Frazzled Well, seeing as professional and career soldiers consider it as feasible, I'd say everything you said is moot.
I'm trying not to be hostile. I will say you need to research the topic more. You hav e made several statements that are literally impossible.
*Nuclear super subs. Ships using nucelar power were not invented until the 1950s, by the US and USSR I might add. Japan had no feasible nuclear program capable of creating such. If it did the Soviets would have stolen the tech... 
*Attacking Los Alamos. Again. Los Alamos is in New Mexico. Its intentionally there. You can't reach it. As a reference its 968 miles from Galveston Island to Los Alamos. Thats on the Texas side. Its 888 from Los Angeles. Japan has no aircraft with that kind of range. Assuming some sort of sumo suicide run its conceivable but then again you have to get past US air defenses in California plus that whole navy thing in the way. Plus you have to find it. Los Alamos was a closely guarded secret.
Can someone explain why the Nazis are in India and Mongolia, and how they got there? Now it could be for the Lost Ark, but I don't envisage Heinz Guderian is rolling through the Mongolian outback in Panzer VI's (although it would be perfect tank country would it not).
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Tadashi wrote:Hence the professionals saying it as not impossible, but very difficult to achieve in reality
I'd question the credentials of anyone simultaneously claiming these to be possible in any reality and to be 'professional.'
But if done, Japan could have forced a negotiated peace on America and the Allies.
The same Japan that likely would have surrendered has we not had the position of unconditional surrender, and the same allies whose ability to produce war materials was so high that by 1945 they had armies the size of Japan's population x5 and enough hard ware to take over the world if they wanted to? Right.
EDIT: Hell Japan would have loved to surrender in 1943. They never saw unconditional surrender coming.
Can someone explain why the Nazis are in India and Mongolia, and how they got there?
More importantly, how are they there while not controlling Malta or the Suez canal and having no means to control them, and while still at war with Russia? There's absolutely no feasible way anyone in 1942-1945 could have invaded across the entire continent of Asia. Let alone Germany, who couldn't even get the 25% of Russia that's in Europe.
29408
Post by: Melissia
You know, if you wanted to talk about Konpeki no Kantai, you could have just used the anime thread.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
LordofHats wrote: Tadashi wrote:Hence the professionals saying it as not impossible, but very difficult to achieve in reality
I'd question the credentials of anyone simultaneously claiming these to be possible in any reality and to be 'professional.'
They also presented a different strategy: Japan stays out of the Atlantic, but still annihilates Pearl Harbor and the Panama Canal - regardless of Australia and the West Coast, a long-distance war in such a situation (especially with Japan entrenched across the West Pacific) would have been hopeless.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Tadashi wrote: LordofHats wrote:
While as a piece of fiction it might be interesting, I'm kind of confused as to what relevance it at all has to reality. The amount of things that would need to be changed to make this scenario remotely plausible, are infinite. It's impossible for events to have turned out this way. Especially considering that Konpeki no Kanta was written by a Japanese hyper-nationalist who really wanted to stroke Japan's ego while having a poor understanding of why WWII even happened, or what Japan was like at the time. Its fiction. Suggesting it could actually happen is kind of outlandish.
Hence the professionals saying it as not impossible, but very difficult to achieve in reality - and not to the same extent as presented. But if done, Japan could have forced a negotiated peace on America and the Allies.
EDIT: Professionals - Major General Rodolfo Canieso (retired, PA - maternal grandfather), Lieutenant Colonel Romulus Canieso ( PA - maternal uncle)
Its very difficult to achieve like raising Trotsky from the dead and developing nuke uber carriers decades before anyone else - meaning they would have first started the theory in the firstplace maybe a decade before fission was even discovered (and remember nuclear fission wasn't discovered until 1938). Thats 3 years before Pearl Harbor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Tadashi wrote:They also presented a different strategy: Japan stays out of the Atlantic,
Why would Japan ever be in the Atlantic? They did the logistics of that back in WWI, decided it was absurd and when asked just shrugged and sent a few destroyers off that just hung around the Med. Sea for the whole war cause they really didn't care Britain and France wanted more boats.
but still annihilates Pearl Harbor and the Panama Canal
Why would they annihilate the most vital canal for them to trade through? Hint, Japan didn't use the Suez much. It doesn't even really get them anything, seeing as the US has more shipyards on the west coast than the east coast.
- regardless of Australia and the West Coast, a long-distance war in such a situation (especially with Japan entrenched across the West Pacific) would have been hopeless.
Japan was entrenched across the west pacific in WWII... That's not altered history, that's actual history. It didn't really get them anything. They got hosed by the US Army and Navy striking upon an utterly brilliant operational plan to win a war against Japan in the 1920's, while having a nation that could materially support such an operation. And of course, they expended their resources taking strategically and materially worthless islands while still entrenched in an ongoing war with China that had become hopeless attrition in 1939.
The Pacific War was hopeless for Japan from the get go. They were never going to win.
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
American carriers had wooden decks until the close of the war. It's why The Divine Wind enjoyed such a terrifying success against the American fleet. Not that advanced at all Fraz, they just made a lot of them quickly.
47598
Post by: motyak
Melissia wrote:You know, if you wanted to talk about Konpeki no Kantai, you could have just used the anime thread.
But he wanted to talk about it like it was real.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
It's why The Divine Wind enjoyed such a terrifying success against the American fleet. Not that advanced at all Fraz, they just made a lot of them quickly.
Success is kind of blowing it out of proportion. Only between 11-13% of planes engaged in Kamikazi attacks actually hit a target. Most of the time, the target just suffered surface damage and went back to port for repairs. The Kamikazi was terrifying but ultimately useless endeavor of desperation (much like Germany's V weapons). It achieved very little for Japan in WWII.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
LordofHats wrote: The Pacific War was hopeless for Japan from the get go. They were never going to win.
Tthe old man just told the only way Japan could have forced the Allies to accept a negotiated peace was to destroy both Pearl Harbor and the Panama Canal. He told me it was part of multiple simulations they studied in the PMA as to how Japan could have won the war. Troll Post: I use a CCS-class Battlecruiser or a Forerunner Dreadnought and glass North America and Western Europe...the End.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 MeanGreenStompa wrote:American carriers had wooden decks until the close of the war. It's why The Divine Wind enjoyed such a terrifying success against the American fleet. Not that advanced at all Fraz, they just made a lot of them quickly.
Advanced radar. Advanced fire control systems. Most importantly, really really damn big. Compare one to all the aircraft carried by all British carriers in WWII and its a fair fight (ok not fair, our planes would have blown your out of the sky in about 18 seconds-biplanes? Seriously???)
90- 100 aircraft each. The Big E alone averaged 85.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essex_class_aircraft_carrier
27391
Post by: purplefood
 Frazzled wrote: MeanGreenStompa wrote:American carriers had wooden decks until the close of the war. It's why The Divine Wind enjoyed such a terrifying success against the American fleet. Not that advanced at all Fraz, they just made a lot of them quickly.
Advanced radar. Advanced fire control systems. Most importantly, really really damn big. Compare one to all the aircraft carried by all British carriers in WWII and its a fair fight (ok not fair, our planes would have blown your out of the sky in about 18 seconds-biplanes? Seriously???)
The bi-planes confuse people...
221
Post by: Frazzled
Tadashi wrote: LordofHats wrote:
The Pacific War was hopeless for Japan from the get go. They were never going to win.
Tthe old man just told the only way Japan could have forced the Allies to accept a negotiated peace was to destroy both Pearl Harbor and the Panama Canal. He told me it was part of multiple simulations they studied in the PMA as to how Japan could have won the war.
Troll Post: I use a CCS-class Battlecruiser or a Forerunner Dreadnought and glass North America and Western Europe...the End.
That would have just ticked us off more. It would have delayed the hurricane but made it more intense as the time delay would have given us time to build more nukes. Japan is eternally happy they didn't get that lucky.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Tadashi wrote:He told me it was part of multiple simulations they studied in the PMA as to how Japan could have won the war.
I'm guess they did that ages ago, cause I can tell you right now that 1 Japan would have never destroyed the Panama canal. it was too vital to their trade. 2 The US wouldn't have needed it anyway. San Diego was one of the biggest Naval dockyards in the world. 3 How would Japan even achieve that goal? The Panama canal is thousands of miles away! Their plan to attack Pearl Harbor was probably about 3/5 the distance and hit numerous problems. They probably didn't even have the oil to get there.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 purplefood wrote: Frazzled wrote: MeanGreenStompa wrote:American carriers had wooden decks until the close of the war. It's why The Divine Wind enjoyed such a terrifying success against the American fleet. Not that advanced at all Fraz, they just made a lot of them quickly.
Advanced radar. Advanced fire control systems. Most importantly, really really damn big. Compare one to all the aircraft carried by all British carriers in WWII and its a fair fight (ok not fair, our planes would have blown your out of the sky in about 18 seconds-biplanes? Seriously???)
The bi-planes confuse people...
The Bismark's gunenrs were fuddled becase they thought they had gone into some sort of time warp.
Kapitan we are being attacked by...biplanes.
Er, Hanz you've been hitting the Schnapps again haven't you...
BOOM
27391
Post by: purplefood
Frazzled wrote: purplefood wrote: Frazzled wrote: MeanGreenStompa wrote:American carriers had wooden decks until the close of the war. It's why The Divine Wind enjoyed such a terrifying success against the American fleet. Not that advanced at all Fraz, they just made a lot of them quickly.
Advanced radar. Advanced fire control systems. Most importantly, really really damn big. Compare one to all the aircraft carried by all British carriers in WWII and its a fair fight (ok not fair, our planes would have blown your out of the sky in about 18 seconds-biplanes? Seriously???)
The bi-planes confuse people...
The Bismark's gunenrs were fuddled becase they thought they had gone into some sort of time warp.
Kapitan we are being attacked by...biplanes.
Er, Hanz you've been hitting the Schnapps again haven't you...
BOOM
Exactly as planned.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
LordofHats wrote: Tadashi wrote:He told me it was part of multiple simulations they studied in the PMA as to how Japan could have won the war.
I'm guess they did that ages ago, cause I can tell you right now that 1 Japan would have never destroyed the Panama canal. it was too vital to their trade. 2 The US wouldn't have needed it anyway. San Diego was one of the biggest Naval dockyards in the world. 3 How would Japan even achieve that goal? The Panama canal is thousands of miles away! Their plan to attack Pearl Harbor was probably about 3/5 the distance and hit numerous problems. They probably didn't even have the oil to get there.
Don't look at me for complete transcripts of those simulations - I asked, but they refused to get me any. I'm a material scientist in training, not a soldier - the closest I'm getting to a battlefield is to develop weapons to maximize the enemy's losses and to minimize friendly casualties. Frazzled wrote: Tadashi wrote: LordofHats wrote: The Pacific War was hopeless for Japan from the get go. They were never going to win.
Tthe old man just told the only way Japan could have forced the Allies to accept a negotiated peace was to destroy both Pearl Harbor and the Panama Canal. He told me it was part of multiple simulations they studied in the PMA as to how Japan could have won the war. Troll Post: I use a CCS-class Battlecruiser or a Forerunner Dreadnought and glass North America and Western Europe...the End.
That would have just ticked us off more. It would have delayed the hurricane but made it more intense as the time delay would have given us time to build more nukes. Japan is eternally happy they didn't get that lucky.
If it was the simulations I have no idea...if its about the troll post, you would never get the chance, seeing as the entire continent has been reduced to a blasted hellscape.
221
Post by: Frazzled
purplefood wrote: Frazzled wrote: purplefood wrote: Frazzled wrote: MeanGreenStompa wrote:American carriers had wooden decks until the close of the war. It's why The Divine Wind enjoyed such a terrifying success against the American fleet. Not that advanced at all Fraz, they just made a lot of them quickly.
Advanced radar. Advanced fire control systems. Most importantly, really really damn big. Compare one to all the aircraft carried by all British carriers in WWII and its a fair fight (ok not fair, our planes would have blown your out of the sky in about 18 seconds-biplanes? Seriously???)
The bi-planes confuse people...
The Bismark's gunenrs were fuddled becase they thought they had gone into some sort of time warp.
Kapitan we are being attacked by...biplanes.
Er, Hanz you've been hitting the Schnapps again haven't you...
BOOM
Exactly as planned.
Its my understanding if that had failed, they had equipped the Third Queen's Lancers with little dingies and were going to charge Bismark in proper British fashion.
Britain keeping the world safe through manly facial hair for four centuries.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Tadashi wrote: LordofHats wrote: Tadashi wrote:He told me it was part of multiple simulations they studied in the PMA as to how Japan could have won the war.
I'm guess they did that ages ago, cause I can tell you right now that 1 Japan would have never destroyed the Panama canal. it was too vital to their trade. 2 The US wouldn't have needed it anyway. San Diego was one of the biggest Naval dockyards in the world. 3 How would Japan even achieve that goal? The Panama canal is thousands of miles away! Their plan to attack Pearl Harbor was probably about 3/5 the distance and hit numerous problems. They probably didn't even have the oil to get there.
Don't look at me for complete transcripts of those simulations - I asked, but they refused to get me any. I'm a material scientist in training, not a soldier - the closest I'm getting to a battlefield is to develop weapons to maximize the enemy's losses and to minimize friendly casualties.
Frazzled wrote: Tadashi wrote: LordofHats wrote:
The Pacific War was hopeless for Japan from the get go. They were never going to win.
Tthe old man just told the only way Japan could have forced the Allies to accept a negotiated peace was to destroy both Pearl Harbor and the Panama Canal. He told me it was part of multiple simulations they studied in the PMA as to how Japan could have won the war.
Troll Post: I use a CCS-class Battlecruiser or a Forerunner Dreadnought and glass North America and Western Europe...the End.
That would have just ticked us off more. It would have delayed the hurricane but made it more intense as the time delay would have given us time to build more nukes. Japan is eternally happy they didn't get that lucky.
If it was the simulations I have no idea...if its about the troll post, you would never get the chance, seeing as the entire continent has been reduced to a blasted hellscape.
By what? Sushi? Dude they brought a sword to a nuke fight and got hammered. Are you alleging they would have some sort of prolonged 8th/Royal Air Force type bombing campaign from Japan to the West Coast? besides the whole, impossible distance thing have you seen the kill rates US fighters did to Japanese planes? ? ?
18698
Post by: kronk
Tadashi wrote:@Frazzled Well, seeing as professional and career soldiers consider it as feasible, I'd say everything you said is moot.
What professionals? Name 1 that would put a nuclear sub in Japan's fleet pre-1950s, please. While this is an interesting idea for a topic, you stating that a "professional and career" soldier considers anything I've seen you say as feasible turns this from something fun into something sad. I'm out.
47598
Post by: motyak
Frazzled you got to chill. This is based off of a show written by (if a previous poster is right) a very pro-Japanese fella who probably wished that they had access to this stuff, that they had won.
I'm sure there are Yanks who have written shows/books about the South having won, for example. Its just fantasy
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Frazzled wrote: By what? Sushi? Dude they brought a sword to a nuke fight and got hammered. Are you alleging they would have some sort of prolonged 8th/Royal Air Force type bombing campaign from Japan to the West Coast? besides the whole, impossible distance thing have you seen the kill rates US fighters did to Japanese planes? ? ?
I have no idea regarding the simulations, as I said, I don't have the transcripts. And my troll post involved a CCS-class Battlecruiser/Forerunner Dreadnought - let's see how primitive carriers handle a plasma bombardment from orbit.  kronk wrote: Tadashi wrote:@Frazzled Well, seeing as professional and career soldiers consider it as feasible, I'd say everything you said is moot.
What professionals? Name 1 that would put a nuclear sub in Japan's fleet pre-1950s, please. While this is an interesting idea for a topic, you stating that a "professional and career" soldier considers anything I've seen you say as feasible turns this from something fun into something sad. I'm out.
They didn't...they said Japan could have won, but in a different manner than presented.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Tadashi wrote: Frazzled wrote:
And my troll post involved a CCS-class Battlecruiser/Forerunner Dreadnought - let's see how your primitive carriers handle a plasma bombardment from orbit.
A what?
Thats ok. Superman would take care fo the situation. He don't cotton to no plasma bombardments on Hawaii. No sirree not on his watch.
27391
Post by: purplefood
Tadashi wrote: Frazzled wrote:
By what? Sushi? Dude they brought a sword to a nuke fight and got hammered. Are you alleging they would have some sort of prolonged 8th/Royal Air Force type bombing campaign from Japan to the West Coast? besides the whole, impossible distance thing have you seen the kill rates US fighters did to Japanese planes? ? ?
I have no idea regarding the simulations, as I said, I don't have the transcripts. And my troll post involved a CCS-class Battlecruiser/Forerunner Dreadnought - let's see how primitive carriers handle a plasma bombardment from orbit.
Well know this is just silly...
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Frazzled wrote:
A what?
Thats ok. Superman would take care fo the situation. He don't cotton to no plasma bombardments on Hawaii. No sirree not on his watch.
Slipspace prison...
221
Post by: Frazzled
purplefood wrote: Tadashi wrote: Frazzled wrote:
By what? Sushi? Dude they brought a sword to a nuke fight and got hammered. Are you alleging they would have some sort of prolonged 8th/Royal Air Force type bombing campaign from Japan to the West Coast? besides the whole, impossible distance thing have you seen the kill rates US fighters did to Japanese planes? ? ?
I have no idea regarding the simulations, as I said, I don't have the transcripts. And my troll post involved a CCS-class Battlecruiser/Forerunner Dreadnought - let's see how primitive carriers handle a plasma bombardment from orbit.
Well know this is just silly...
Britain is prepared.
Deep under Picaddily circus, is a bunker. In that bunker is a weapon btoh ancient and terrifying. Its so terrifying that when Churchill first learned of it, he vetoed its use against even the hated Nazis. It was...
The Haggis Missile.
53251
Post by: xole
Tadashi wrote: Frazzled wrote:
By what? Sushi? Dude they brought a sword to a nuke fight and got hammered. Are you alleging they would have some sort of prolonged 8th/Royal Air Force type bombing campaign from Japan to the West Coast? besides the whole, impossible distance thing have you seen the kill rates US fighters did to Japanese planes? ? ?
I have no idea regarding the simulations, as I said, I don't have the transcripts. And my troll post involved a CCS-class Battlecruiser/Forerunner Dreadnought - let's see how primitive carriers handle a plasma bombardment from orbit.
kronk wrote: Tadashi wrote:@Frazzled Well, seeing as professional and career soldiers consider it as feasible, I'd say everything you said is moot.
What professionals? Name 1 that would put a nuclear sub in Japan's fleet pre-1950s, please.
While this is an interesting idea for a topic, you stating that a "professional and career" soldier considers anything I've seen you say as feasible turns this from something fun into something sad.
I'm out.
They didn't...they said Japan could have won, but in a different manner than presented.
Who's this they? "Professional Soldiers"?
What is this silliness?
I don't even need to debate how ridiculously impossible this is. Honestly, you and your friends have an equal chance discovering immortality as Japan did winning that war. Especially WITHOUT the nazis...which doesn't seem to be what this thread is actually about at all.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Hell so far we're mostly focusing on their Navy, which was by all rights pretty good (maybe best in the world in 1936), but their army was... So, so bad. Woefully under equipped, poorly trained, an asinine battle doctrine, and wholley incapable of waging a modern war at the time.
Even their navy had a lot of problems, namely that they relied far too much of precisely timed operations that were just infeasible in actual battle conditions.
Most of this wasn't really considered until the 1970's, so maybe, just maybe, some random military think tank might have had some outlandish scenario ages ago and thought it might have worked. But today we know better.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Again I think the best way for Japan to win is to not play. If Japan either
1) seizes Dutch and British assets without attacking the US; or
2) withdraws from China and thus gets the oil embargo lifted.
The interesting question is, without a direct Japanese attack, would the US have declared war on Japan? I think not baby puppy. if they and Japan then beat us in several engagements without Germany declaring war we might have negotiated something.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
We would have. We were extremely suspicious of Japanese expansion in the 30's. Taking Dutch East India would have been seen as a direct threat to the Phillipines (and indeed, Japan did not believe they could control South East Asia so long as the US controlled those islands). Once Japan attacked into the South Pacific, we would have declared war, especially with FDR just looking for a reason to get into WWII.
221
Post by: Frazzled
LordofHats wrote:We would have. We were extremely suspicious of Japanese expansion in the 30's. Taking Dutch East India would have been seen as a direct threat to the Phillipines (and indeed, Japan did not believe they could control South East Asia so long as the US controlled those islands). Once Japan attacked into the South Pacific, we would have declared war, especially with FDR just looking for a reason to get into WWII.
I disagree strongly. FDR wanted a shooting war with Germany. He didn't want one with Japan. Even after Pearl Harbor he treated it as a horrific sideshow to 'the real fight.' If Germany didn't declare war, what support would he get in a highly isolationist USA, of whom 2/3 probably couldn't pin Japan on a map?
47547
Post by: CthuluIsSpy
Alternate History thread...and you want World War 2 without nazis...
Anyone up for command and conquer?
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
I just got my copy of Guns of the South SIGNED by the man himself at A-Kon 23 this summer. I had a fanboy moment I admit.
My favorite alternate history scenarios usually stem from singular moments we know could have changed history completely. For example, a British Tommy in WW1 has a young Adolf Hitler dead to rights and let him live. The world would have changed pretty significantly. There still most likely would have been a second major war in Europe but the potential for how that might be changed is phenomenal.
I think historically the Nazis were in India and Mongolia as part of Himmler's obsession with proof of the myth of the aryan ubermensch/Lost Ark/relics in general. That type of Nazi raiding went on for their entire span of power.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
I would also question the credentials of any military officer who hails from a counrty who's big military claim to fame is being curb stomped by one John J. Pershing....perhaps ya heard of him?
If I may star with Japan's aircraft....the Zero started the war without a sealed fuel tank. This means that when it got into a fight with us forces, it was out climbed and out dived, its only advantage was speed and maneuverability. Much of imperial japans air forces was like this....then we introduced some of the best fighters ever, the corsair, hell cats, and lightnings.
The only way I can conceive of The IJN winning in the pacific is that the Kamikazis were successful AND their plan was to disable a us ship enough that japanese marines could board and take over the disabled vessels....even then, this has to be beyond imaginably successful to win a war by stealing the weapons of your enemies enough times to give yourself the advantage.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Zero had no armor.....
11029
Post by: Ketara
Interestingly enough, even the Japanese Commanders at the time knew they'd never have a hope in hell of beating/invading the US and said so. America is simply too big.
Their goal was essentially to unleash a lightning attack on all available US forces, and cripple any ability to fight back/launch a counter-attack locally, whilst occupying and fortifying as many islands and as much land as possible. It was hoped then that by looking big and scary, and making it plain the Americans would take tremendous losses, the US would simply write off the whole affair as too much bother, and come to an appropriate peace treaty.
Which actually, judging from a historical perspective, wasn't such an outlandish idea as it might be today. America was just one big boy in a world of big boys (The British Empire, the Nazi's, the Soviets, etc), and bar WW1, most conflicts to date then had ended by one side gaining an obvious advantage, and the other side conceding.
What they didn't count on was;
a) not succeeding in wiping out the American fleet at pearl harbour, and
b) just how bloodyminded and patriotic Americans are, and
c) how small the odds were of the British allowing Hitler's ally to have free run of that part of the world once he was gone.
10127
Post by: Happygrunt
Frazzled wrote:Again I think the best way for Japan to win is to not play. If Japan either
1) seizes Dutch and British assets without attacking the US; or
2) withdraws from China and thus gets the oil embargo lifted.
The interesting question is, without a direct Japanese attack, would the US have declared war on Japan? I think not baby puppy. if they and Japan then beat us in several engagements without Germany declaring war we might have negotiated something.
Everyone seems to forget that most of the oil Japan used came from the good ol' US of A.
Also, a coup against the EMPEROR? You are aware that he was viewed as a GOD! The Japanese were conquering Asia for the same reason the Nazis was manufacturing the Holocaust. It was all about racial supremacy and a land grab.
And before anyone asks what would happen if the US had not discovered the nuke? A costly land invasion of Japan, which was already in place and was the plan B if the bomb failed.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Not to mention we had rewards for civilians who came up with good weapon ideas that actually worked...
This is why we used napalm bats on Japan to neutralize some of their industrial capabilities.
34644
Post by: Mr Nobody
What if Japan had attacked Vancouver instead of Pearl Harbour? I vaguely remember a history textbook saying that was the original idea.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 Mr Nobody wrote:What if Japan had attacked Vancouver instead of Pearl Harbour? I vaguely remember a history textbook saying that was the original idea.
Then the mighty Canadian fleet would have roared forth to do battle.
Vancouver? 
21720
Post by: LordofHats
I disagree strongly. FDR wanted a shooting war with Germany. He didn't want one with Japan. Even after Pearl Harbor he treated it as a horrific sideshow to 'the real fight.' If Germany didn't declare war, what support would he get in a highly isolationist USA, of whom 2/3 probably couldn't pin Japan on a map?
Don't underestimate how much American's disliked the Japanese in the 1930's. Even back in the 20's, we were much more concerned with Japanese expansion than anyone else. Hell, we were concerned about it in the 1910's after they took Russia's butt and beat it into a pancake. Japanese expansionism was the 'terrorism' of the era. We were a little more mellow about it when Japan mostly wanted to take over mainland asia, but when their sight turned to the South Pacific, the UK and us kind of had our "not sure if serious" faces on. Even the Washington treaty that limited the tonnage of naval ships was designed to limit the Japanese Navy to dissuade their expansion.
Also, a coup against the EMPEROR? You are aware that he was viewed as a GOD! The Japanese were conquering Asia for the same reason the Nazis was manufacturing the Holocaust. It was all about racial supremacy and a land grab.
There were many coups, but not against the emperor. They were against the militant/pacifist/weak willed etc government that served him. Some officers just plain recognized how dysfunctional the current political system was.
What if Japan had attacked Vancouver instead of Pearl Harbour? I vaguely remember a history textbook saying that was the original idea.
Agreeing with Frazz. Not sure why Japan would want to hit Vancouver. Maybe you're thinking of San Diego? A plan did call for a strike against San Diego when it was still the USN headquarters in the pacific.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Actually, they did "successfully" attack mainland US....
What they did was fill huge weather balloons carrying napalm and set them towards the US. The couple that managed to make land fall, did so in the rainforests of Western Oregon.
I guess the idea was that when the napalm hit, it would create a huge, uncontrollable forest/city fire, and demoralize us in someway... guess they didn't count on the mighty forests of Oregon drowning them out like that
29408
Post by: Melissia
Our forests > Japanese bombs.
Yes.
But you know, let's take this thread over and come up with a less stupid premise that isn't focused on "OMG JAPANESE EMPIRE!"
Alternate history can be fun when it's not stupid.
42782
Post by: DiAF
What if the tables were turned. What would the world be like today, if the US destroyed/conquered Japan? That could be an interesting alternate history.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Politics in East Asia would be pretty different. If we conquered Japan, we'd likely have a much stronger military presence in Asia I think. Depending on how many Japanese still lived in Japan (I presume we did a land invasion which would have probably ended up killing a lot of them), there may be ongoing conflict.
Its just hard to figure it out. The war could have continued for a whole nother year, maybe two? We might have never intervened in Korea maybe. Politics with China could be way different too.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
I actually wonder how different East Asia would be if we had placed someone like Eisenhower or more, personable, type military leader instead of MacArthur
According to most historians, he brow beat the Japanese into doing things his way, forced them to bring certain American "institutions" to there (such as Baseball) mostly so that he and his staff could feel more at home. He basically stomped on their thousands of years of tradition (of course, this was the same tradition that led to WW2)
For an interesting take on alternate history, try and think of how WW2 would have gone differently if Rommel had risen to power, instead of Hitler, and go!
29408
Post by: Melissia
LordofHats wrote:Politics in East Asia would be pretty different. If we conquered Japan, we'd likely have a much stronger military presence in Asia I think. Depending on how many Japanese still lived in Japan (I presume we did a land invasion which would have probably ended up killing a lot of them), there may be ongoing conflict.
Its just hard to figure it out. The war could have continued for a whole nother year, maybe two? We might have never intervened in Korea maybe. Politics with China could be way different too.
Politics at home would be, too, if we had Japan as a state-- although that's unlikely.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Yeah. It sounds like an awesome start for a counter-factual exercise but we'd probably need a more narrowed focus, like effects on the Korean War, or Vietnam, or China. Could write a dissertation on it.
29408
Post by: Melissia
How about the effects of internal politics in the US?
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Yeah that too. Guess I've got "What would happen in Asia" on the brain. Truman actually might not have been elected for one. The election of 1948 was close. Had the war dragged on, I doubt he'd had won. McCarthyism and NATO take a hit in that.
Oh and the Cold War too actually. Depending on how you look at it, Truman was a huge instigator of rising tensions with the USSR. I don't know anything about his 1948 opponent in the election, but that could have been huge.
53251
Post by: xole
Going off the title I'd be more interested in how Europe would have turned out without Nazis. (If world war ii had never happened, and we just had a scruff with the japanese. No arguing "someone would have taken their place")
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
 xole wrote:Going off the title I'd be more interested in how Europe would have turned out without Nazis. (If world war ii had never happened, and we just had a scruff with the japanese. No arguing "someone would have taken their place")
Well, the thing is that someone WOULD take his place... however, for the sake of the exercise, this person is almost decidedly NOT anti-semite.. so on top of the over-eager Militarism expressed by H, we would see something of a more organized "bankroll" behind the operations. Depending on the military mind that galvanizes the nation of Germany, this is a VERY scary sort of proposition.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 DiAF wrote:What if the tables were turned. What would the world be like today, if the US destroyed/conquered Japan? That could be an interesting alternate history.
Wait, what? We did that. Ask the Japanese. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Ensis Ferrae wrote:I actually wonder how different East Asia would be if we had placed someone like Eisenhower or more, personable, type military leader instead of MacArthur
According to most historians, he brow beat the Japanese into doing things his way, forced them to bring certain American "institutions" to there (such as Baseball) mostly so that he and his staff could feel more at home. He basically stomped on their thousands of years of tradition (of course, this was the same tradition that led to WW2)
For an interesting take on alternate history, try and think of how WW2 would have gone differently if Rommel had risen to power, instead of Hitler, and go!
Alternatively, what if we had someone like "burn everything!" Sherman?
30287
Post by: Bromsy
Hows about this for an alternative history scenario.
The fourth crusade never makes it to Constantinople. Say a big ass storm takes em out, or there is a massive outbreak of some suitable horrendous medieval disease. Or the crusaders see how small the turnout is and just all bail, or force the Venetians to actually take them to the Holy Land.
I'd figure something like the Eastern Roman Empire enduring significantly longer, maybe even long enough to make it into the fairly modern era. I wonder what the effects on the world would be. No muslim states in Europe, another major power thrown into the mix in European politics. Less of a hegemony for the Catholics, I suppose. Greece maybe not becoming as gakked up as it is.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
I don't know about that. The Fourth Crusade hurt the Holy Roman Empire, but its downfall really lay in the relative weakness of its own political system. A long series of events resulted in its dissollution, of which I'd consider the 4th Crusade to be more minor compared to the Reformation and the Wars of Religion.
30287
Post by: Bromsy
LordofHats wrote:I don't know about that. The Fourth Crusade hurt the Holy Roman Empire, but its downfall really lay in the relative weakness of its own political system. A long series of events resulted in its dissollution, of which I'd consider the 4th Crusade to be more minor compared to the Reformation and the Wars of Religion.
Holy Roman Empire is not the Eastern Roman Empire. Talking Byzantines bro.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Oh oops. XD Silly me.
Okay I see what you mean now. No idea why I read it that way. I'm not totally versed in the Byzantines, but I wonder if we can call the sacking during the 4th Crusade their real downfall. I'd say the Battle of Manzikert finished off the eastern empire.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Frazzled wrote:
Alternatively, what if we had someone like "burn everything!" Sherman?
So basically, what if it were Patton, and not Eisenhower who was "Supreme Allied Commander Europe" ???
@Bromsy... according to all of my History classes thus far, "Eastern Roman Emprie" never existed... if you are talking Byzantines, just call them Byzantines, or Byzantium.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
I think Patton would have been ill suited for it. The man was too abrasive. Supreme Allied Commander was a position that needed more of a diplomatic personality. I figure if Patton somehow ended up in that position, the allied forces would have had a much harder time cooperating with one another. EDIT: Not to mention its a total waste of Patton's talent.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Patton hated Montgomery to.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Well yeah.. Patton was about Winning and winning his way. I just think that if he didn't have Eisenhower over him, he would have burned more of his way through Europe to see Germany beaten, like Sherman did in Ga.
30287
Post by: Bromsy
LordofHats wrote:Oh oops. XD Silly me.
Okay I see what you mean now. No idea why I read it that way. I'm not totally versed in the Byzantines, but I wonder if we can call the sacking during the 4th Crusade their real downfall. I'd say the Battle of Manzikert finished off the eastern empire.
Nah, Manzikert gave Anatolia to the muslims, but the fall of Constantinople and the establishment of the Latin Empire and the other states by the Crusaders shattered Byzantine central authority, and control. Without that happening there is every chance that they could have endured, holding onto their European and island possessions, and with time there is a chance that a reversal of fortune could have even allowed them to retake their asian territories. I'm not saying they would have been some Europe spanning colossus or anything, but it would have seriously changed stuff this far down the timeline.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
@Bromsy... according to all of my History classes thus far, "Eastern Roman Emprie" never existed... if you are talking Byzantines, just call them Byzantines, or Byzantium.
... I think it sounds better. So there.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Would be an interesting play out compared to the Ottoman's I suppose.
10347
Post by: Fafnir
On the subject of alternate WW2 Japanese history, how about we talk about a good one?
50512
Post by: Jihadin
I've seen that toon....what toon?...been a bit..
10347
Post by: Fafnir
Jin-Roh: The Wolf Brigade.
It's part of Mamoru Oshii's Kerberos Saga.
Hitler gets assassinated by Stauffenberg, Germany wins WW2 and occupies Japan.
Fantastic film. I really should read/watch some of the other parts in the saga.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Wait, how does Stauffenberg killing Hitler win WWII for Germany? Am I the only one who writes alternate history with an eye towards plausibility XD
5470
Post by: sebster
LordofHats wrote:EDIT: I'll also add the idea of Japan switching sides is, highly unlikely. They grew really close to the Germans in the 30's after Britain 'stabbed' them in the back and stopped supporting the Imperial Navy's training program. Plus, the Commonwealth remained an obstacle to Japanese expansion in Asia, USA or not USA.
Sure, but the Japanese were also really, really pissed about Germany signing a deal with the Soviets. Had things gone differently and the push North faction in Japan had won out*, then Japan would have been looking for someone new to help them in their war against the Soviets. Now, from there any situation that ends up with Japan finding allies in a war against the Soviets is pretty far fetched, but then the actual events of the war often seem pretty fanciful.
*The push North faction winning is in and of itself pretty fanciful, as getting trounced by the Soviets in full scale engagement was inevitable, they somehow would have had to win that political debate through border skirmishes alone, and avoided any full scale operations, which would have been very hard... especially when they had no idea that full scale operations would result in their defeat. Automatically Appended Next Post: Tadashi wrote:@Frazzled Well, seeing as professional and career soldiers consider it as feasible, I'd say everything you said is moot.
Being a skilled, professional career soldier doesn't mean you know gak about the basic industrial and demographic realities that decide warfare. In fact, being skilled, professional soldiers with little understanding of the basic industrial and demographic realities that decide warfare sums up pretty well why Japan got themselves into a load of wars they couldn't win and ended up bringing ruin and death upon themselves.
There is just no getting past the basic reality that Japan's very skilled, very professional naval fleet wasn't enough. The USA had the industrial capacity to overwhelm any losses inflicted and come back with a better, numerically superior force.
And there is just no getting past the basic reality that despite the disciplined and tactially skillful nature of the IJA, they lacked the logistics capability that could make them a truly modern army. It's why they got stomped at Khalkhin Ghol, and it's why the Soviet invasion of Manchuria was like a hot knife through butter.
10347
Post by: Fafnir
LordofHats wrote:Wait, how does Stauffenberg killing Hitler win WWII for Germany? Am I the only one who writes alternate history with an eye towards plausibility XD
It's not detailed in Jin-Roh, but chances are that the assassination that takes place in the setting of the Kerberos Saga would have been very different from Stauffenberg's failed attempt.
5470
Post by: sebster
MeanGreenStompa wrote:American carriers had wooden decks until the close of the war. It's why The Divine Wind enjoyed such a terrifying success against the American fleet. Not that advanced at all Fraz, they just made a lot of them quickly.
That was less of a technological issue and more one of design preference. A wooden deck reduced top weight, allowing you to build larger hanger areas and thereby launch more aircraft more quickly.
That design was a mistake, and one the US corrected after the war, but it hardly represented any major deficiency in aircraft carrier design during WWII.
And considering the US lost only 4 or 24 carriers fielded in WW2, and none were lost to kamakazi attacks it'd be very hard to make any claim that Divine WInd had terrifying success because of wooden flight decks. Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled wrote:(ok not fair, our planes would have blown your out of the sky in about 18 seconds-biplanes? Seriously???)
There's this weird thing that goes on among war buffs, even among well considered academics, where they look at UK war readiness in 1939 when war broke out with Germany, and compare it to US war readiness in 1941 when they entered the war and think the two things are equal. When both the UK and US began their military modernisation drives in 1936, comparing the UK in 1939 to the US 1941 produces pretty farcical results.
For the record, by 1941 when the US had eventually decided to enter the war, the UK had carrier born Spitfires. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Happygrunt wrote:Everyone seems to forget that most of the oil Japan used came from the good ol' US of A.
Sort of. A lot of it came from south east asian sources that weren't owned by the USA, but were controlled by them.
The USA cutting off those sources to Japan in response to Japan's military expansion is basically why Pearl Harbour happened.
Also, a coup against the EMPEROR? You are aware that he was viewed as a GOD!
It wouldn't be a formal coup that overthrew the Emperor, but an informal coup whereby one militay faction announced to the Emperor that they were running things now, and the Emperor said 'okay'. That kind of thing was fairly common place.
The Japanese were conquering Asia for the same reason the Nazis was manufacturing the Holocaust. It was all about racial supremacy and a land grab.
There are massive differences between Lebensraum and the Co-Prosperity Sphere. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ensis Ferrae wrote:Not to mention we had rewards for civilians who came up with good weapon ideas that actually worked...
This is why we used napalm bats on Japan to neutralize some of their industrial capabilities.
Uh, the bat bombs weren't actually deployed. Their readiness was put down for late 1945 and it was considered too late to impact the war and was cancelled. Automatically Appended Next Post: LordofHats wrote:Wait, how does Stauffenberg killing Hitler win WWII for Germany? Am I the only one who writes alternate history with an eye towards plausibility XD
I think you probably are. I think most peope imagine a setting that they'd like or think was cool, and then basically just line up a string events to get there, often with very little knowledge of the context of those events that made them play out like they did.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
none were lost to kamakazi attacks it'd be very hard to make any claim that Divine WInd had terrifying success because of wooden flight decks.
They got at least two escort carriers. USS St. Lo and USS Bismark Sea
5470
Post by: sebster
 Fafnir wrote:It's not detailed in Jin-Roh, but chances are that the assassination that takes place in the setting of the Kerberos Saga would have been very different from Stauffenberg's failed attempt.
It doesn't matter if he assassinated him by jumping on him SuperMario style. It doesn't change the basics of the military situation Hitler faced. The Russians had loads of stuff and were making even more every day, and the Germans couldn't match that. The only really sensible outcome for Germany winning the war has to go back to the encirclement at the beginning of Barbarossa. Change that, trap greater Soviet forces so that less are available for the defence of Moscow and/or the Southern counter-offensive, and maybe then you can argue for German victory. Or just agree with Hitler and say the Soviet state collapsed due to inherent Russian weakness.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Maybe it's just me, and I've only seen a few such works, but Japanese alternate history just strikes me as unprecedented ego stroking. Like there's a whole school of writers and artists in Japan who just think "damn our first half of the 20th century sucks, and we're so awesome. Lets do this instead." And it just turns out... Bad...
But maybe I'm just crazy
10347
Post by: Fafnir
LordofHats wrote:Maybe it's just me, and I've only seen a few such works, but Japanese alternate history just strikes me as unprecedented ego stroking. Like there's a whole school of writers and artists in Japan who just think "damn our first half of the 20th century sucks, and we're so awesome. Lets do this instead." And it just turns out... Bad...
But maybe I'm just crazy
I suggest you see Jin Roh then. Japan still loses, and the social situation there is pretty dismal.
5470
Post by: sebster
 Jihadin wrote:none were lost to kamakazi attacks it'd be very hard to make any claim that Divine WInd had terrifying success because of wooden flight decks.
They got at least two escort carriers. USS St. Lo and USS Bismark Sea
Out of the 80 odd that were built? I'm having a hard time seeing that as 'terrifyingly effective'. Automatically Appended Next Post: LordofHats wrote:Maybe it's just me, and I've only seen a few such works, but Japanese alternate history just strikes me as unprecedented ego stroking. Like there's a whole school of writers and artists in Japan who just think "damn our first half of the 20th century sucks, and we're so awesome. Lets do this instead." And it just turns out... Bad... But maybe I'm just crazy
It isn't just the alternative history. I mean, ask yourself why there was a major anime like Grave of the Fireflies on Japanese suffering at the end of the war, and by and large media silence on what Japan did in China.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
Here's an alternate history for you. Ghenghis Khan doesn't die during the initial Mongolian invasion.
The only reason that massive war of conquest ended with Ghenghis's death, because all the nobles and generals had to return East to elect I think is the term the new Khan. This is an army that stomped all comers and had just made the greatest empire the world would ever see.
How would the world change with a Mongolian ruled Europe?
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
Ok, this thread seems to be going in circles, so I'll start punching holes:
Pearl Harbor invasion: This actually would have been brutally effective in the short term, and likely, though not certainly, eliminated the majority of US surface forces in the Pacific, including the carriers who were not actually present, as they had insufficient supplies on hand to reach depots other then Pearl, unless they sacrificed their escorts. Remember as well that taking Pearl would have given Japan the US fleet to salvage and take as it's own, which is something that seems to have been overlooked so far. Remember that many of the ships were sunk fairly near drydocks capable of accommodating the largest of them, and a huge stockpile of supplies to repair and maintain the US fleet. That would have been quite a leg up, particularly since our radar technology would likely have fallen into their hands.
Long term, it's more questionable. It would depend on how effective they were at following up Pearl with raids against US ports. This likely would have sped up production of the proposed I-400 boats that specialized in exactly that sort of surprise raid.
Alternate Yamamoto Strategies: Yamamoto actually proposed several strategies, as he opposed confronting the US directly. The most likely to succeed was his plan to concentrate on the South East resource area. This would have denied the US a good pretext for war, at the same time remedying one of Japan's largest issues, raw materials. No super carriers and mega battleships needed.
US winning anyway: In the long term, yes, but there are too many factors to juggle here. One of the most difficult would be raids against west coast ports and the Panama Canal. While Frazz will be quick to point out the US does not back down when attacked, they also have always had a way to fight back. Constant harassing raids against port facilities, and wrecking the canal every so often, would have crippled US attempt to rebuild their surface forces.
I think that Germany shows pretty well what happens when your Navy is unable to defend your ports effectively.
US Nuclear Power in a Japanese dominated Pacific: Frazz, not going to happen, for one reason: even on a one way trip, no US bomber built before 1952 had sufficient range with a nuclear payload to leave the US and reach Hawaii, let alone Japan. The bombs had to be shipped to airfields very close to Japan, due to the changes required to the B29 in order to carry the bomb load. Remember that early nuclear devices were VERY heavy.
18277
Post by: Khornholio
If the Japanese had gone with the Army's plan to invade Siberia to get oil and materials rather than the Navy's plan to go south and take the oil from South East Asia, I believe the war would've had a different outcome as the United States' entry would've been prolonged, if they entered at all, and the Soviets would've been fighting on two fronts. As with any point-counter point made in alternative history talk, it's all speculation.
As for the Nazis not existing, the outcome of World War I, including the Treaty of Versailles, and the rise of fascism in Italy would also have to be vastly different. IF the entente had lost World War I, who is to say there wouldn't have been French fascism and British National Socialism?
21720
Post by: LordofHats
 BaronIveagh wrote:Pearl Harbor invasion: This actually would have been brutally effective in the short term, and likely, though not certainly, eliminated the majority of US surface forces in the Pacific, including the carriers who were not actually present, as they had insufficient supplies on hand to reach depots other then Pearl, unless they sacrificed their escorts. Remember as well that taking Pearl would have given Japan the US fleet to salvage and take as it's own, which is something that seems to have been overlooked so far. Remember that many of the ships were sunk fairly near drydocks capable of accommodating the largest of them, and a huge stockpile of supplies to repair and maintain the US fleet. That would have been quite a leg up, particularly since our radar technology would likely have fallen into their hands.
Raiding is a long term strategy. There's no feasible way Japan could have held Hawaii. It's just too far away from any meaningful port (on their side).
US Nuclear Power in a Japanese dominated Pacific: Frazz, not going to happen, for one reason: even on a one way trip, no US bomber built before 1952 had sufficient range with a nuclear payload to leave the US and reach Hawaii, let alone Japan. The bombs had to be shipped to airfields very close to Japan, due to the changes required to the B29 in order to carry the bomb load. Remember that early nuclear devices were VERY heavy.
Seeing as Japan taking Hawaii is an infeasible prospect to begin with, I think this is a moot point.
Japan's only shots at winning in the Pacific were to follow up the damage done at Pearl Harbor with a decisive naval engagement (which they attempted at Midway and Coral Sea), but the Japanese Navy just couldn't bring this kind of engagement to conclude in their favor. Midway was a disaster for the IJN, all over a piece of land that was strategically useless to Japan. Coral Sea was the consequence of a Navy that continued to hold to the theory of the big gun ship when faced with a Navy that had few battleships but a good number of carriers.
Destroying battleship row inadvertently helped the US win the Pacific war. Carriers at the time were cheaper and faster to produce, so we built them and it turns out that at the time the naval strategy of swarming a big gun fleet with planes just worked out marvelously.
If the Japanese had gone with the Army's plan to invade Siberia to get oil and materials rather than the Navy's plan to go south and take the oil from South East Asia
Japan tried this, and it ended in disaster. The Russians beat them senseless. The IJA just, didn't have it in them to fight in China and Russia at the same time. They couldn't fight two large states so directly. It's why they hedged their bets on a southern expansion, as the islands of the South Pacific were pretty easy pickings. Problem is they underestimated how much the US would want to kick their butts.
As with any point-counter point made in alternative history talk, it's all speculation.
Speculation can be logically supported by known evidence. Especially when dealing with plausible events, the outcome can be fairly accurately predicted.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
LordofHats wrote:
Raiding is a long term strategy. There's no feasible way Japan could have held Hawaii. It's just too far away from any meaningful port (on their side).
Having played this game with you in the past, I'll have to ask you to define 'meaningful port'. Several large ports that were Japanese held at the time were at least as close to Pearl as the US west coast is. And without the US fleet, Wake and Midway would likely have been easy pickings.
LordofHats wrote:
Seeing as Japan taking Hawaii is an infeasible prospect to begin with, I think this is a moot point.
Ok, explain to me, in a paragraph or less, why the Japanese taking Hawaii was infeasible? Japan was able to supply larger operations than occupying Hawaii would require at greater distances than separate Hawaii from what were Japanese held ports and military depots at the time. Hell, Trukk was pretty close to Hawaii, and was a massive supply depot.
30287
Post by: Bromsy
Guys. really, there was no way for Japan to win. It wasn't in their cards. Their hope was that the US would make terms at some point based on the advantage that Japan held, based on X. But short of X being massive thermonuclear bombardment of every major city is the US, the US wasn't going to back down.
The Japanese of the time were disdainful of the Americans, and considered them farmers and businessmen, not warriors. They had not yet realized that industrial scale warfare make warriors irrelevant.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
BaronIveagh wrote: Several large ports that were Japanese held at the time were at least as close to Pearl as the US west coast is.
There are only two of them. The only major IJN ports were in Satsuma and Tokyo. They had other ports sure, but nothing compared to those in Seattle or San Diego or even LA at the time. The US west coast makes Japanese port ability in 1940 look pathetic. They did not have the logistic ability to fight a long range war with the US. They didn't have the oil, they didn't even have the ships to supply their fleet. With no major port between Hawaii and Japan, Japan was left incapable of projecting power to US soil (or surrounding waters) for any long period of time. Sure they got some Alaskan islands, but look where those islands are.
Here's a map:
And even more importantly, they're pointless islands with no real value.
It's just under 2000 miles from the US west coast to Hawaii. And the US has HUGE supplies of domestic oil at this time period and near infinite raw materials. Japan is about 3000 miles from Hawaii, and have virtually no oil supply, limited natural resources, and are surrounded by Britain, China, the US, and the USSR. There's just too many battles to fight and too many enemies to watch for to dedicate their fleet to holding Hawaii.
And without the US fleet, Wake and Midway would likely have been easy pickings.
And what do Wake or Midway give Japan? Nothing. They're useful to the US, but to Japan are essentially meaningless. The key goal of going to Midway and Wake was to draw out the US fleet with the hope to engage them in a decisive battle that would result in peace negotiations. That plan failed, obviously.
LordofHats wrote:Ok, explain to me, in a paragraph or less, why the Japanese taking Hawaii was infeasible? Japan was able to supply larger operations than occupying Hawaii would require at greater distances than separate Hawaii from what were Japanese held ports and military depots at the time. Hell, Trukk was pretty close to Hawaii, and was a massive supply depot.
Its not infeasbible because they couldn't take it its infeasible because they'd never be able to hold it. It's too far away. The oil expenditure to keep ships operating all the way to Hawaii would run the Imperial Navy dry, and contrary to what they thought, there wasn't that much oil in the south pacific (and even with there was, hi British Commonwealth, got airfields?), and the means to get what oil there was were too primitive to maintain such a long distance war effort. Taking Hawaii is an obvious resource drain, which is why they never planned to do it, especially not against the vastly superior population and industrial capacity of the United States.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
LordofHats wrote:
There are only two of them. The only major IJN ports were in Satsuma and Tokyo. They had other ports sure, but nothing compared to those in Seattle or San Diego or even LA at the time. The US west coast makes Japanese port ability in 1940 look pathetic. They did not have the logistic ability to fight a long range war with the US. They didn't have the oil, they didn't even have the ships to supply their fleet. With no major port between Hawaii and Japan, Japan was left incapable of projecting power to US soil (or surrounding waters) for any long period of time. Sure they got some Alaskan islands, but look where those islands are.
Um, I think taking Pearl probably would have solved that. The Navy was preparing to store approx 8 billion (with a B. Of their maximum storage capacity of 10 billion gallons) gallons of fuel oil at Red Hill, a few miles from Pearl, a 2 year supply for the US Pacific fleet. This facility was known about, but not attacked, due to the depth the tanks were buried at. Further, at the time, Pearl had been expanded to be every bit as large as fleet servicing facilities on the Main land. This does not even get into things like the massive fuel reserves that were at Honolulu at the time, or the gigantic aircraft fuel reserves.
The opposition to the landing would have been approx 3 divisions.
LordofHats wrote:
And what do Wake or Midway give Japan? Nothing. They're useful to the US, but to Japan are essentially meaningless.
Wake, to a degree. Midway, however, would have been useful to anyone, the airfields and aircraft fueling depots would have allowed the deployment of large numbers of land based aircraft in the region of Hawaii.
LordofHats wrote:The oil expenditure to keep ships operating all the way to Hawaii would run the Imperial Navy dry, and contrary to what they thought, there wasn't that much oil in the south pacific (and even with there was, hi British Commonwealth, got airfields?), and the means to get what oil there was were too primitive to maintain such a long distance war effort. Taking Hawaii is an obvious resource drain, which is why they never planned to do it, especially not against the vastly superior population and industrial capacity of the United States.
Well, one, as I said, taking Hawaii would have devastating in the short term, effectively putting the US fleet out of action in the Pacific for three years or so. Eventually the US would have produced enough ships if Japan just stopped at Hawaii and didn't keep the pressure on. Taking Hawaii would have given them the entire supply reserve the Navy had built up, which was a several YEAR supply, and within striking distance of the US West Coast. Remember the facilities that churned out that mass of ships didn't exist yet in 41/42, and no matter how many men and how much material you have, it's hard to build dockyard facilities if you're getting raided every now and again. The US was able to build that huge fleet because their production facilities were effectively out of range. If Hawaii was lost, that situation radically changes.
221
Post by: Frazzled
How many forces does Japan have to try to take Hawaii?
How are they going to transport them?
Even assuming you destroy the Pacific Fleet with both carriers, that leaves and entire additional fleet. Plus they didn't get out of Malaya and the Phillipines for several months. If the US viewed Hawaii as a threat they would have bolstered those defenses substantially. Remember in August of '42 the US invaded Guadalcanal.
By the time Japan would have been capable of anything Hawaii would have been full of troops and material.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
Frazzled wrote:How many forces does Japan have to try to take Hawaii?
How are they going to transport them?
Even assuming you destroy the Pacific Fleet with both carriers, that leaves and entire additional fleet. Plus they didn't get out of Malaya and the Phillipines for several months. If the US viewed Hawaii as a threat they would have bolstered those defenses substantially. Remember in August of '42 the US invaded Guadalcanal.
By the time Japan would have been capable of anything Hawaii would have been full of troops and material.
Well, first of all, they didn't land yet in the Philippines yet either. The entire 14th Army was saddled up for an amphibious invasion at the time, (5 divisions with 4 more in reserve, IIRC). If by 'entire additional fleet' you mean the single heavy cruiser and assorted World War I leftovers of the Asiatic fleet, there was not much to worry about (19 of 40 were sunk by May of 42, and the rest fled to Australia) . The Atlantic fleet at the time consisted of six battleships, four carriers (counting the escort carrier Long Island), and what could best be described as a 'mixed bag' of everything else, (the Pacific fleet having taken the best and the Asiatic fleet having gotten the worst) having only just been reformed a few months prior. Hitting the Canal would have more or less made them a non-issue for the foreseeable future.
Basically my plan would have been to use the 14th to hit Hawaii first, mop up there, set up a garrison and start looting supplies while the majority of the fleet moved on the harass the US mainland, with a detachment to escort the troopships to the Philippines. MacArthur was in no real risk of being resupplied or reenforced with Pearl in Japanese hands and could have been dealt with.
30287
Post by: Bromsy
So what if one zealous clerk, on seeing the waves of Japanese coming ashore, blows the fuel supplies?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Well, first of all, they didn't land yet in the Philippines yet either.
***Then you’re saying you’re going to change all Japan’s plans and attempt an invasion across a great distance. Meanwhile your oil is running out, because you don’t have the capacity to invade Malaya and the East Indies. Plus this gives time for the British to get their act together in said area. So Japan runs out of gas by February. War ends.
The entire 14th Army was saddled up for an amphibious invasion at the time, (5 divisions with 4 more in reserve, IIRC).
*But not for a 2,000 mile trip. Again, this means Japan has left British and Dutch possessions alone and loses the war in weeks instead of years. Brilliant!
*Also, you're trying to invade an actual state. Three army divisions, plus civilians. You don't have a high enough force ratio. Instead of Guadalcanal happening in late 1942 it occurs in December 1941 and Japan gets stuck in a land war with people who are good at it. Japan's forces get mauled.
If by 'entire additional fleet' you mean the single heavy cruiser and assorted World War I leftovers of the Asiatic fleet, there was not much to worry about (19 of 40 were sunk by May of 42, and the rest fled to Australia) .
The Atlantic fleet at the time consisted of six battleships, four carriers (counting the escort carrier Long Island), and what could best be described as a 'mixed bag' of everything else, (the Pacific fleet having taken the best and the Asiatic fleet having gotten the worst) having only just been reformed a few months prior. Hitting the Canal would have more or less made them a non-issue for the foreseeable future.
***You glossed over the 4 carrier part.
Basically my plan would have been to use the 14th to hit Hawaii first, mop up there, set up a garrison and start looting supplies while the majority of the fleet moved on the harass the US mainland, with a detachment to escort the troopships to the Philippines. MacArthur was in no real risk of being resupplied or reinforced with Pearl in Japanese hands and could have been dealt with.
1. Japan runs out of gas in weeks. That’s the whole point of their WWII adventure. They needed the oil You just denied it to them.
2. Attack the US mainland and you get hit with real aircraft. Your precious carriers are put at risk for no real benefit.
3. Assuming Japan magically doesn’t run out of oil. You now have the full attention of the US now. Philippines goes on war alert. Malaya, Dutch East indies on alert. British troops may move into Thailand or otherwise get their act together just slightly. You’ve doomed Japan utterly.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
Frazzled wrote:
***Then you’re saying you’re going to change all Japan’s plans and attempt an invasion across a great distance. Meanwhile your oil is running out, because you don’t have the capacity to invade Malaya and the East Indies. Plus this gives time for the British to get their act together in said area. So Japan runs out of gas by February. War ends.
Malaya and the East Indies was handled by a different portion of the Southern Expeditionary Group. This is just what they lined up to take Luzon.
Frazzled wrote:
*But not for a 2,000 mile trip. Again, this means Japan has left British and Dutch possessions alone and loses the war in weeks instead of years. Brilliant!
Except, again, these are not those troops.
Frazzled wrote:
*Also, you're trying to invade an actual state. Three army divisions, plus civilians. You don't have a high enough force ratio. Instead of Guadalcanal happening in late 1942 it occurs in December 1941 and Japan gets stuck in a land war with people who are good at it. Japan's forces get mauled.
Um, Frazz, you do know how small the population of Hawaii was at the time, right? Counting US service personnel, the entire population of the chain was barely 400k.
The four carriers out of gas in the middle of the Pacific or the four carriers that can't get there due to damage to the canal? The only Carrier that would have been still in the Pacific would have been the Saratoga, which was laid up in San Diego at the time.
Frazzled wrote:
1. Japan runs out of gas in weeks. That’s the whole point of their WWII adventure. They needed the oil You just denied it to them.
Except the staggering stockpiles on Hawaii. Enough for the US navy to run on for 2 years. Plus the civilian stockpiles at Honolulu.
Frazzled wrote:
2. Attack the US mainland and you get hit with real aircraft. Your precious carriers are put at risk for no real benefit.
As of Dec 7th, there were only 11 fighter squadrons (mostly armed with the obsolete P-40 Warhawk, who's inability to engage the Oscar and Zeke in particular is well known) scattered up and down the west coast, and six bomber squadrons, in addition to the Saratoga's compliment. While that would have rapidly improved, that Navy lost it's main coastal reconnaissance in system in 1936 ( IIRC) with the loss of the Macon. (It's theorized that if the Macon had not gone down and transferred to Pearl with the rest of it's command, that Pearl Harbor would never have happened. The Macon could sweep an area the size of the state of California in 24 hours.)
Frazzled wrote:
3. Assuming Japan magically doesn’t run out of oil. You now have the full attention of the US now. Philippines goes on war alert. Malaya, Dutch East indies on alert. British troops may move into Thailand or otherwise get their act together just slightly. You’ve doomed Japan utterly.
Frazz, the Philippines was on war alert the moment Pearl got hit anyway. The Dutch East Indies landings were handled by an entirely different portion of the Southern Expeditionary Group. (And do you think they didn't have the full attention of the US anyway?)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Bromsy wrote:So what if one zealous clerk, on seeing the waves of Japanese coming ashore, blows the fuel supplies?
Because the Navy specifically designed them to prevent that, as they felt the real risk was Japanese agents blowing the fuel and munition reserves. Remember that the Japanese made up a significant minority among the civilian population on Hawaii.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Why do people think we need the Panama Canal to move ships into the Pacific?
Also, how are you going to move a complet SLOW MOVING invasion force under cover of complete surprise all the way to Hawaii?
it will take several months to take all the chains (assuming the same length of time as the Phillipines). However it will be contested all the time.
Again. You're talking Guadalcanal 9 months early. Except this time. We can just boot scoot right back to the Phillipines. Plus the foces supposedly available to cover Malaya and the Dutch East Indies now have no support, but the British have at least one carrier. How are you going to land troops when all your carriers are duking it out off Hawaii?
No. The Japanese did the most aggressive actions they could. They didn't hold back. If they could have done something more they would have.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
Frazzled wrote:Why do people think we need the Panama Canal to move ships into the Pacific?
Also, how are you going to move a complet SLOW MOVING invasion force under cover of complete surprise all the way to Hawaii?
it will take several months to take all the chains (assuming the same length of time as the Phillipines). However it will be contested all the time.
Two things: the US Navy had no idea where the Japanese fleet was or what they were doing until the last minuet. They had lost track of them more than a month earlier. That's way more then enough time.
Two: not really. Hawaii is primarily open and had 400k people, counting US military. The Philippines had large amounts of jungle, and had 19m civies and 151k troops. How do you figure that Hawaii would take as long as the Philippines to overrun?
Frazzled wrote:
Again. You're talking Guadalcanal 9 months early. Except this time. We can just boot scoot right back to the Phillipines. Plus the foces supposedly available to cover Malaya and the Dutch East Indies now have no support, but the British have at least one carrier. How are you going to land troops when all your carriers are duking it out off Hawaii?
Um, Frazz, what carrier? Major forces included two seaplane tenders (USS Langley and Childs), two heavy cruisers (USS Houston and HMS Exeter), seven light cruisers (HNLMS De Ruyter, Java and Tromp, USS Marblehead and Boise, HMAS Hobart and Perth), 22 destroyers, and 25 American and 16 Dutch submarines (although the Dutch submarines were outdated and short of spare parts).
And how are you scooting anywhere, you'd have no Navy. That's like say that the Japanese forces could have just scooted from Java and stopped the landing at Okinawa.
221
Post by: Frazzled
I was saying you can't land in Malaya/Dutch East Indies without proper carrier support. Sallying those carriers for Hawaii for an extended period means you either have no support or you have to wait. Both are good for the British.
Wiki on the Atlantic Fleet:
On 7 December 1941 the Fleet comprised eight separate components. Battleships, Atlantic Fleet was made up of Battleship Division Three (BB-40 New Mexico, BB-41 Mississippi and BB-42 Idaho) and Battleship Division Five (a training division made up of the older battleships BB-34 New York, BB-35 Texas, and BB-33 Arkansas. The other components were Aircraft, Atlantic Fleet, which included Carrier Division Three with USS Ranger (CV-4) and USS Wasp (CV-7), and additionally Yorktown and Long Island; Cruisers, Atlantic Fleet, Patrol Wings, Atlantic Fleet (Patrol Wings 3, 5, 7, 8, and 9); Destroyers, Atlantic Fleet,[4] Submarines Atlantic Fleet; Train, Atlantic Fleet, and Amphibious Force, Atlantic Fleet (PHIBLANT, COMPHIBLANT).[5] During World War II "Transports, Amphibious Force, Atlantic Fleet" was part of this command (ComTransPhibLant). Smaller units included the Antisubmarine Development Detachment, Atlantic Fleet (ASDEVLANT) located at Quonset Point, Rhode Island.[6] The detachment was responsible for the study and development of antisubmarine gear during World War II. The Commander of the detachment was known as COMASDEVLANT.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
Frazzled wrote:I was saying you can't land in Malaya/Dutch East Indies without proper carrier support. Sallying those carriers for Hawaii for an extended period means you either have no support or you have to wait. Both are good for the British.
You do realize that at the same time the fleet was hammering Pearl, the Japanese had a battleship and carrier support already at the Dutch East Indies, right? The only time they pulled in larger numbers was for the battle of the Java sea, where they more or less wiped out the commonwealth surface forces at the time. Of the 8 odd carriers the Japanese had, 4 were at Pearl. Afterwards, some were shuffled around to support the invasion of Java.
Yeah, I pointed those out, including the fact that Long Island was not a CV but a CVE. Big difference. You also left out, unless I missed it, the wooden sailing ships that were assigned to it too, as well as the gunboat squadron.
As to 'Why the Canal'? Because crossing at Good Hope or Cape Horn takes months and costs ships.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
BaronIveagh wrote:Ok, this thread seems to be going in circles, so I'll start punching holes:
Pearl Harbor invasion: This actually would have been brutally effective in the short term, and likely, though not certainly, eliminated the majority of US surface forces in the Pacific, including the carriers who were not actually present, as they had insufficient supplies on hand to reach depots other then Pearl, unless they sacrificed their escorts. Remember as well that taking Pearl would have given Japan the US fleet to salvage and take as it's own, which is something that seems to have been overlooked so far. Remember that many of the ships were sunk fairly near drydocks capable of accommodating the largest of them, and a huge stockpile of supplies to repair and maintain the US fleet. That would have been quite a leg up, particularly since our radar technology would likely have fallen into their hands.
Long term, it's more questionable. It would depend on how effective they were at following up Pearl with raids against US ports. This likely would have sped up production of the proposed I-400 boats that specialized in exactly that sort of surprise raid.
Alternate Yamamoto Strategies: Yamamoto actually proposed several strategies, as he opposed confronting the US directly. The most likely to succeed was his plan to concentrate on the South East resource area. This would have denied the US a good pretext for war, at the same time remedying one of Japan's largest issues, raw materials. No super carriers and mega battleships needed.
US winning anyway: In the long term, yes, but there are too many factors to juggle here. One of the most difficult would be raids against west coast ports and the Panama Canal. While Frazz will be quick to point out the US does not back down when attacked, they also have always had a way to fight back. Constant harassing raids against port facilities, and wrecking the canal every so often, would have crippled US attempt to rebuild their surface forces.
I think that Germany shows pretty well what happens when your Navy is unable to defend your ports effectively.
US Nuclear Power in a Japanese dominated Pacific: Frazz, not going to happen, for one reason: even on a one way trip, no US bomber built before 1952 had sufficient range with a nuclear payload to leave the US and reach Hawaii, let alone Japan. The bombs had to be shipped to airfields very close to Japan, due to the changes required to the B29 in order to carry the bomb load. Remember that early nuclear devices were VERY heavy.
My biggest issue is that the Japanese didn't have any military forces capable of capturing the Hawaiian islands in position to actually follow up the Pear Harbor attacks. You actually have to take the islands to salvage the US ships, which you probably don't have the resources to do. Especially with the US carrier fleet hovering nearby.
US Nuclear Bombers would still be viable in a unlikely scenerio of Japan's dominance. The US would just have to maybe borrow some Russian airfields in Kamchaka. Russia would probably be happy to let the US use some Airfields there, in exchange for some of Japan's land. Which at this point the US is not going to mind giving up.
58635
Post by: BolingbrokeIV
lol. I can't believe someone thought they could begin a discussion about an alternate reality where the USA doesn't exist without an American getting their knickers in a twist.
It's like when you played cops and robbers as kids and you shot your mate but he proclaimed he couldn't die because he had a force field.
34390
Post by: whembly
Glorioski wrote:lol. I can't believe someone thought they could begin a discussion about an alternate reality where the USA doesn't exist without an American getting their knickers in a twist.
It's like when you played cops and robbers as kids and you shot your mate but he proclaimed he couldn't die because he had a force field.
I don't know about you... but, I'm enjoying this thread...
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Quite frankly, the solid truth is that US at the time was the last person you wanted to aggrivate.
The Japanese lost the war because they attacked Pearl Harbor. In the words of their own Admiral Yamamoto "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."
If Japan had not gotten greedy and concentrated on what they could hold and take without aggrivating the US they could have simply consolidated their holdings and maintained their Asian conquests.
58635
Post by: BolingbrokeIV
whembly wrote:Glorioski wrote:lol. I can't believe someone thought they could begin a discussion about an alternate reality where the USA doesn't exist without an American getting their knickers in a twist.
It's like when you played cops and robbers as kids and you shot your mate but he proclaimed he couldn't die because he had a force field.
I don't know about you... but, I'm enjoying this thread...
Good for you.
I probably would take more interest if any of the other, many, questions raised by the OP's hypothetical situation were explored other than the boring 'How could America possible be beaten by Japan' one.
34390
Post by: whembly
Glorioski wrote:whembly wrote:Glorioski wrote:lol. I can't believe someone thought they could begin a discussion about an alternate reality where the USA doesn't exist without an American getting their knickers in a twist.
It's like when you played cops and robbers as kids and you shot your mate but he proclaimed he couldn't die because he had a force field.
I don't know about you... but, I'm enjoying this thread...
Good for you.
I probably would take more interest if any of the other, many, questions raised by the OP's hypothetical situation were explored other than the boring 'How could America possible be beaten by Japan' one.
Well... it's almost like the "tactics thread" here...
How can a squad of 30 boyz take down a 10 man paladin squad?
But, with real world HISTORY!
53251
Post by: xole
 whembly wrote:Glorioski wrote:whembly wrote:Glorioski wrote:lol. I can't believe someone thought they could begin a discussion about an alternate reality where the USA doesn't exist without an American getting their knickers in a twist.
It's like when you played cops and robbers as kids and you shot your mate but he proclaimed he couldn't die because he had a force field.
I don't know about you... but, I'm enjoying this thread...
Good for you.
I probably would take more interest if any of the other, many, questions raised by the OP's hypothetical situation were explored other than the boring 'How could America possible be beaten by Japan' one.
Well... it's almost like the "tactics thread" here...
How can a squad of 30 boyz take down a 10 man paladin squad?
But, with real world HISTORY!
If they perform at quadruple their average rolls.
And yes, I'd like to talk about Europe.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
 Grey Templar wrote:n the words of their own Admiral Yamamoto "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."
"A military man can scarcely pride himself on having 'smitten a sleeping enemy'; it is more a matter of shame, simply, for the one smitten. I would rather you made your appraisal after seeing what the enemy does, since it is certain that, angered and outraged, he will soon launch a determined counterattack." is what he really said.
Several amphibious trained forces were available at that moment, however, no follow up landing was planned. So, no, no follow up forces were in range, because there was no plan to do so. The Japanese did have amphibious forces that could have quickly carried out the assault that were ready to go, but instead they were sent to Luzon. In fact, Nagumo refused to follow up with a third wave, even though both the tactical officer who planned the attack and the captains of the carriers who were conducting it insisted on one.
According to no less a source than Chester Nimitz, the loss of the supplies alone would have delayed US operations in the Pacific for at least an additional year, perhaps two (Gaily, War in the Pacific). That does not include the loss of the Harbor facilities or the possible salvage of the US ships. Or attacks on US land targets. Perhaps this might tell you just how much the Navy had all their eggs in one basket.
Enterprise was steaming into the zone of operation if a landing had taken place and would most likely have been lost. Lexington was returning from a supply run to Midway and likely would also have been lost, due to it's inability to refuel if for no other reason.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Glorioski wrote:
I probably would take more interest if any of the other, many, questions raised by the OP's hypothetical situation were explored other than the boring 'How could America possible be beaten by Japan' one.
Here's one for you then: How would World War I have been different if the Titanic had not sank?
53251
Post by: xole
BaronIveagh wrote: Grey Templar wrote:n the words of their own Admiral Yamamoto "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."
"A military man can scarcely pride himself on having 'smitten a sleeping enemy'; it is more a matter of shame, simply, for the one smitten. I would rather you made your appraisal after seeing what the enemy does, since it is certain that, angered and outraged, he will soon launch a determined counterattack." is what he really said.
Several amphibious trained forces were available at that moment, however, no follow up landing was planned. So, no, no follow up forces were in range, because there was no plan to do so. The Japanese did have amphibious forces that could have quickly carried out the assault that were ready to go, but instead they were sent to Luzon. In fact, Nagumo refused to follow up with a third wave, even though both the tactical officer who planned the attack and the captains of the carriers who were conducting it insisted on one.
According to no less a source than Chester Nimitz, the loss of the supplies alone would have delayed US operations in the Pacific for at least an additional year, perhaps two (Gaily, War in the Pacific). That does not include the loss of the Harbor facilities or the possible salvage of the US ships. Or attacks on US land targets. Perhaps this might tell you just how much the Navy had all their eggs in one basket.
Enterprise was steaming into the zone of operation if a landing had taken place and would most likely have been lost. Lexington was returning from a supply run to Midway and likely would also have been lost, due to it's inability to refuel if for no other reason.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Glorioski wrote:
I probably would take more interest if any of the other, many, questions raised by the OP's hypothetical situation were explored other than the boring 'How could America possible be beaten by Japan' one.
Here's one for you then: How would World War I have been different if the Titanic had not sank?
The titanic not sinking is an impossibility, due to the universal laws of irony.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Wait what?
Whats the Titanic have to do with WW1?
Or is my sarcastic meter broken?
54773
Post by: Galdos
Tadashi wrote:What if...in the improbable but not impossible event...that Japan uses superior tactics and technology (which they had) to win the Pacific War, .
HAHAHHAHA
Your statement is right, it is Improbable yes first off. Its Improbably because, USA had far superior tactics and far superior technology. That is why the USA suffered less casualties than Japan in EVERY BATTLE with the exception of Iwo Jima.
To give you an idea of the technology level. M4 Sherman crews armed with a 75mm had to use High Explosive rounds against Jap tanks because the AP rounds would go THROUGH the Japs leaving a giant hole in the tank but beside that no problems. During all the armor clashes, the Shermans would come out with near no casulties with like a 10 to 1 or better kill ratio.
The only thing the Japs had were their individual soldiers were better soldiers. Oh without a doubt of that but with poor tactics and technology that failed to keep up with the US, it was considered that they did not have a chance by allied commanders. The question was not how but when. Admiral Yamamto gave Japan 6 months of being over the Allies before he expected the Allies would turn it around.
53251
Post by: xole
I'm not even sure if tadashi is still a part of this thread.
54773
Post by: Galdos
I dont think he is.
Ive always liked thinking, what would the world be like if the Allies had to invade Japan, especially if Russia joined in.
I know how likely that is, what with the Atomic bomb and Japan surrendering because the Soviets were the straw that broke the cammels back, but I always found the idea of a north and south Japan instead of Korea interesting
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
If we had invaded, the entire Island would likely have been annhilated. The entire populace was ready to fight, down to the last women and child.
There wouldn't really have been much of a civilian populace left to split into 2 Japans.
I say this because the military leaders would, after the shock and devestation of women and children suicide bombers, have gone ahead and just bombed everything from the Air. At the point where everyone is armed, there is no such thing as a civilian target. Ground troops would follow the bombers and clean up.
Any survivors would likely have to be taken away from Japan just because there wouldn't be any infrastructure left to support them. They would all end up in the US and Canada most likely, at least those that weren't on the side the Russians took.
Then we would have a divided japan, but it would be the soveriegn territory of the US or Russia.
34390
Post by: whembly
Grey Templar wrote:If we had invaded, the entire Island would likely have been annhilated. The entire populace was ready to fight, down to the last women and child.
There wouldn't really have been much of a civilian populace left to split into 2 Japans.
I say this because the military leaders would, after the shock and devestation of women and children suicide bombers, have gone ahead and just bombed everything from the Air. At the point where everyone is armed, there is no such thing as a civilian target. Ground troops would follow the bombers and clean up.
Any survivors would likely have to be taken away from Japan just because there wouldn't be any infrastructure left to support them. They would all end up in the US and Canada most likely, at least those that weren't on the side the Russians took.
Then we would have a divided japan, but it would be the soveriegn territory of the US or Russia.
Yeah... there was a nice paper about the potential invasion of Japan.
Since EVERY Japanese was going to be armed, we had plans to essentially wipe out Japan with over a million US soliders casualties and unknown numbers of Japanese prisoner.
If that had happened, we'd probably annexed Japan and assimilated the survivors.
Who would've thunk'ed that the two Atomic bombs SAVED lives and possibly a "sovereign Japan"?
54773
Post by: Galdos
I believe the Atomic Bomb was the right call for exactly what you said whembly.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
Grey Templar wrote:Wait what?
Whats the Titanic have to do with WW1?
Or is my sarcastic meter broken?
Oh, the sheer number of rich, influential people who went down with the ship. Many of whom helped shape policy or otherwise manipulated public opinion.
Galdos wrote:
To give you an idea of the technology level. M4 Sherman crews armed with a 75mm had to use High Explosive rounds against Jap tanks because the AP rounds would go THROUGH the Japs leaving a giant hole in the tank but beside that no problems. During all the armor clashes, the Shermans would come out with near no casulties with like a 10 to 1 or better kill ratio.
The only thing the Japs had were their individual soldiers were better soldiers. Oh without a doubt of that but with poor tactics and technology that failed to keep up with the US, it was considered that they did not have a chance by allied commanders. The question was not how but when. Admiral Yamamto gave Japan 6 months of being over the Allies before he expected the Allies would turn it around.
Hmm... Ok, time to poke holes again:
The M2A4, the original US tank in the theater was roughly equivalent to the Japanese Type 95, both sides using light tanks due to the fact they were fighting in jungles, a hard environment for M4s. After seeing US lights were at best on an even footing, they pushed M4 variants into action, which performed much better then anticipated. Due to difficulty in transport, the Japanese, however, only ever deployed a single tank division, the 2nd, to the Entire Pacific theater, meaning that the Sherman never actually encountered Japanese tanks in it's weight class, built at the same time as it was (Such as the Type 3 Chi-Nu), only older models such as the Type 97.
It's sort of like saying that a KV 2 was technologically superior to the Panzer IV. It wasn't. It just carried really heavy armor and a 152mm gun.
Where Japanese technology lagged the US was mostly in radar (ignoring nukes) and combat medicine. Compared to their Japanese equivalents, the US had a great deal more warning. (Note, again, if the US lost Pearl, this advantage goes up in smoke, as examples would have fallen into Japanese hands.)
EDIT: Ah, I see the thread has ended along with any semblance of it not being an American dick waving competition.
Oddly, men Like MacArthur and Nimitz were not entirely certain of Victory. I think they were better judges of it than anyoen in this thread.
Later all.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
For those who wished for word on Europe here goes....
It's not quite Europe, but if Rommel had had the same or similar rules in place for his troops in Africa, the war down there may have gone quite differently... As it was, In Africa, it wasn't so much an allied victory, as an Axis defeat... the German field rations weren't well regarded, and their field "sanitation" was quite a ways behind the Allies...
So, it stands to reason that if the Germans had had "clean" facilities, then the dysentery and other field diseases wouldn't have ravaged the fighting ability and morale of German troops in the field, thereby providing a window of greater opportunity for an Axis "victory" in Africa.
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
Or Japan would have surrendered anyway. Japan had been attempting a conditional surrender through the (technically) neutral Soviet Union. Or the Soviet Union may have invaded before they surrendered, which is probably a worse outcome for the Western Allies than Japan continuing to fight.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
On the topic of Europe, in regards to "Operation Sea Lion" (the alleged operation that would have seen Germans landing on British soil)... What coast lines would have been suitable? How many Germans do you think it would have taken, and how would it have affected the overall Allied war effort?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Assuming the Germans win the Battle for Britain, they have marginal air superiority.
They send in the Fallschirmjagers as the advance force much like the allies sent in their Paratroopers prior to D-day. Sow confusion behind enemy lines and secure vital targets prior to the main force arriving.
Then we have the Amphibious landings. Probably along the mouth of the Thames. It allows for a penetration of the interior and a straight shot into London.
In the long run, if all of the British Isles fall it basically makes a retaking of Europe impossable. The US wouldn't have a jumping off point for an invasion.
Realistically, the Germans are able to take southern England but stall due to a lack of Naval assets and supplies. Then the US reinforcements show up and push them off the Island.
If England and Ireland do fall, my guess is that a reluctant truce would be called between the US and Germany. Hitler uses this to focus on taking out Russia, which probably ends in a stalemate on the eastern front.
meanwhile, the US uses the lull likewise to take out Japan.
In the end we have Russia and Germany locked in a stalemate while the US watches warily from the sidelines.
15076
Post by: fire4effekt
I like how it started with, lets pretend...
And then the collective internet said NOOOOOO! #butthurt
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Grey Templar wrote:Assuming the Germans win the Battle for Britain, they have marginal air superiority.
They send in the Fallschirmjagers as the advance force much like the allies sent in their Paratroopers prior to D-day. Sow confusion behind enemy lines and secure vital targets prior to the main force arriving.
Then we have the Amphibious landings. Probably along the mouth of the Thames. It allows for a penetration of the interior and a straight shot into London.
In the long run, if all of the British Isles fall it basically makes a retaking of Europe impossable. The US wouldn't have a jumping off point for an invasion.
Realistically, the Germans are able to take southern England but stall due to a lack of Naval assets and supplies. Then the US reinforcements show up and push them off the Island.
If England and Ireland do fall, my guess is that a reluctant truce would be called between the US and Germany. Hitler uses this to focus on taking out Russia, which probably ends in a stalemate on the eastern front.
meanwhile, the US uses the lull likewise to take out Japan.
In the end we have Russia and Germany locked in a stalemate while the US watches warily from the sidelines.
While plausible, don't forget that the US did have units fighting in Italy.. With Africa effectively dealt with by Montgomery, Italy would become, IMO the new "D-Day beach" and instead of working through the better for fighting Northern reaches of France, we'd have to REALLY fight through the alps, and the war would either grind to a halt, grind to a stalemate, or he who moves fastest still wins, albeit with a few more casualties than otherwise.
However, I do agree that IF the entirety of the British Isles fall, then the war becomes more or less untenable for us to do anything with (as we wouldn't be too keen on fighting through the alps and conducting Hannibal-esque maneuvers through them) the war in Europe.
54773
Post by: Galdos
Hmm... Ok, time to poke holes again:
The M2A4, the original US tank in the theater was roughly equivalent to the Japanese Type 95, both sides using light tanks due to the fact they were fighting in jungles, a hard environment for M4s. After seeing US lights were at best on an even footing, they pushed M4 variants into action, which performed much better then anticipated. Due to difficulty in transport, the Japanese, however, only ever deployed a single tank division, the 2nd, to the Entire Pacific theater, meaning that the Sherman never actually encountered Japanese tanks in it's weight class, built at the same time as it was (Such as the Type 3 Chi-Nu), only older models such as the Type 97.
So in other words, the US had superior technology in the transportation field allowing it to transport its MBT the M4 Sherman to battle zones while Japan is unable too. That actually supports what I just said thank you.
Where Japanese technology lagged the US was mostly in radar (ignoring nukes) and combat medicine. Compared to their Japanese equivalents, the US had a great deal more warning. (Note, again, if the US lost Pearl, this advantage goes up in smoke, as examples would have fallen into Japanese hands.)
And aircraft, the Zero was more manuverable so it generally outperformed the heavier but better armed Wildcat. The problem was (the the Japs) that America followed the Wildcat with the Hellcat and Corsair which were ultimately more capable than the Japenese planes (though the Japs were always a bit more manuverable, not too much, and that was their only advantage)
And Ships, all the Allied ships were superior to their Axis counterparts, from the Fletcher class Destroyer to the Iowa class Battleships, to the American Carriers which after Midway, were being built with metal flight decks, not wood, something Japan continued with to the end of the war.
And weapons, though it wasnt a huge difference here, the most was either the Americans either packed a bigger punch with the BAR and Thompson compared to the Jap counters or they were simply capable of a better firing rate like the light machine guns or the M1 Garand.
Do not mistake people saying Jap did not have a chance with American fanatasim. Talk about what army was better and I bet most people here would say Germany. We are simply saying that the Empire of Japan was not going to win against America. Everyone knew it, (Japan had such a little chance, the Allies agreed that Germany was the bigger threat and only contributed a small faction of the Allied powers to Japan) from the Allied command staff to Admiral Yamamoto.
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
The US isn't even in the war when Sealion was due to take place in early Autumn 1940. Germany's problem is that it will be completely unable to supply troops by sea since the Royal Navy outnumbers the Kreigsmarine by a factor of at least 10 to 1 for every class of ship. That and it will be about a month before the channel is completely uncrossable due to the weather.
The Luftwaffe are also required to win the Battle of Britain by a margin and over a geographical area that they are completely unable to cover. And then go on to fight another battle they are ill equipped to win.
There's a fair chance that the Japanese would move things forward since the Royal Navy and likely a good chunk of the Australian and Canadian Navies would be tied up in the English Channel.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 Galdos wrote:I dont think he is.
Ive always liked thinking, what would the world be like if the Allies had to invade Japan, especially if Russia joined in.
I know how likely that is, what with the Atomic bomb and Japan surrendering because the Soviets were the straw that broke the cammels back, but I always found the idea of a north and south Japan instead of Korea interesting
A blood bath.Estimates of casualties for both sides were estimated to be in the millions.
54773
Post by: Galdos
I think that is something we could all agree on lol. I meant more the modern day politics of it like Grey Templar said
lol
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
More speculation here.
At this point, Germany controlls Europe and is locked in stalemate with the U.S.S.R.
Germany is going to run out of manpower eventually, and resources. But if Germany develops the Atomic Bomb they will likely destroy the Commies. Not sure about the German's access to the materials required. Enough for a few dozen at least?
In this situation, basically the western portion of Russia and the area around Poland is irradiated. Creating a no-mans land between the 2 powers with small safe corridors. Germany uses the lull to rebuild her shattered strength. Russia is likely defeated eventually, but it takes many years and largely consists of Germany lobbing the occasional bomb toward population centers(likely using rockets) while their military forces skirmish along the no-mans land.
With Russia crippled and basically bombed back into the stone age, its now a "Cold War" between the US and the Nazis. Basically replace the word Communisim with Nazim in all our History books. Communisim likely fails in China due to the demise of Russia. The US maintains strong military forces and friendship with the remaining allies around the globe.
Germany eventually takes control over much of the African continant, similer to how Communisim took over Asia.
Eastern Asia and North America are the centers of freedom while Europe and North Africa are the centers of brutality.
Ethnic cleansing is merged with necessity in the Third Riche. Modern day slavery on a scale unheard of is established. The upper class is composed of Hitler's Aryan Ideal while the undesirables are effectivly enslaved. Africa is a source of Labor to build Nazi Europe.
People in Africa, that can, begin mass immigrations to the US and other New World countries. Possably places in Asia as well.
The Nazi's eventually begin withspread eugenics programs. People are matched with their ideal partners. 'Perfect' Aryan couples are used to mass produce babies in surrogate mothers and eventually test tubes.
Genetic Manipulation is used to make better, faster, stronger humans. Perhaps resulting in a Warrior class that merges the Aryan ideals with the perfect warrior, or simply creates monsters whose only purpose is to fight and protect the "perfect race"
Grimdark enough yet?
54773
Post by: Galdos
Seems plausable to me
27391
Post by: purplefood
Assuming Britain didn't try anything...
Which it would of course.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
This is sad. I seem to have missed a good occasion to bash at Tadashi. Meh.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Think again...
If Japan withdrew its forces from the mainland (except for Korea), they'd have enough ground troops to overrun both SE Asia and Hawaii. The fleet was large enough to handle both Pearl and SE Asia.
1) Capturing the oil depots at Hawaii would have given the fleet enough resources to maintain an extended North Pacific campaign, and the SE Asian oil fields would just be a bonus.
2) Japan would have used the Naval Yards not just to salvage the sunken fleet, but also to refit their fleet with reverse-engineered radar and other advanced technologies obtained at Hawaii.
3) The submarine base would have sped up development of the submarine carriers - which would close Panama, preventing any ships, troops, or supplies from moving from the Atlantic to the Pacific, unless the USN was willing to risk the Straits of Magellan.
4) Carriers based from Hawaii could launch hit and run strikes against Naval Yards up and down the West Coast with little fear of retribution - the Pacific is vast, and the fleet would have been refitted with radar technology.
5) As Baron pointed out, once Pearl Harbor was lost, any ships at sea would have minimal chance to reach the West Coast at all.
27391
Post by: purplefood
Submarine carriers?
The ones that could only carry 3 aircraft at a time?
51396
Post by: Tadashi
purplefood wrote:Submarine carriers? The ones that could only carry 3 aircraft at a time?
What makes you think Japan wouldn't have improved the design (either of the submarine-carriers or the planes or the weapons) for a sustained effort to keep the Panama Canal closed?
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Ugh. You know one of the last act of the military if Japan were going to take over Hawaii is to destroy everything of military value. Drydock, fuel storage, military supplies, and basically everything of military use.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Jihadin wrote:Ugh. You know one of the last act of the military if Japan were going
to take over Hawaii is to destroy everything of military value. Drydock, fuel storage, military supplies, and basically everything of military use.
Then capture them...seize Hawaii, suppress the West Coast's shipyards, and close the Panama Canal.
27391
Post by: purplefood
Tadashi wrote: purplefood wrote:Submarine carriers?
The ones that could only carry 3 aircraft at a time?
What makes you think Japan wouldn't have improved the design (either of the submarine-carriers or the planes or the weapons) for a sustained effort to keep the Panama Canal closed.
Well it's not exactly a feasible technology at the time... I don't know if it's feasible now to be honest.
It'd also be a huge drain on resources.
You have to keep loads of submarines there at massive cost in fuel and probably munitions, not to mention casualties.
Whereas the US Navy just has to build loads of destroyers to sink the submarines. Which it could do...
51396
Post by: Tadashi
purplefood wrote: Tadashi wrote: purplefood wrote:Submarine carriers? The ones that could only carry 3 aircraft at a time?
What makes you think Japan wouldn't have improved the design (either of the submarine-carriers or the planes or the weapons) for a sustained effort to keep the Panama Canal closed.
Well it's not exactly a feasible technology at the time... I don't know if it's feasible now to be honest. It'd also be a huge drain on resources. You have to keep loads of submarines there at massive cost in fuel and probably munitions, not to mention casualties. Whereas the US Navy just has to build loads of destroyers to sink the submarines. Which it could do...
Depends on how you use the submarine-carriers: if you avoid combat and concentrate on keeping the Gatun Locks destroyed and the Canal's integrity, you wouldn't all that many of them...not to mention the nightmare of sending ships through the Straits of Magellan in military terms, and with the West Coast's shipyards under interdiction.
5470
Post by: sebster
 Khornholio wrote:If the Japanese had gone with the Army's plan to invade Siberia to get oil and materials rather than the Navy's plan to go south and take the oil from South East Asia, I believe the war would've had a different outcome as the United States' entry would've been prolonged, if they entered at all, and the Soviets would've been fighting on two fronts. As with any point-counter point made in alternative history talk, it's all speculation.
This is completely wrong. The military faction arguing for the push into Siberia was originally dominant... and managed to provoke border skirmishes into outright war at Khalkhin Gol. Except the Japanese got absolutely smashed, as while they had a tactically skilled, disciplined army, it was massively behind even the Russians on basic logistical capabilities. When the Soviets armoured pincers engulfed the Japanese and inflicted a devestating defeat the Japanese learned there was no way they could push North.
In fact, the stomping at Khalkhin Gol was so emphatic that the Japanese didn't dare do anything even when the Soviets were obviously supplying the KMT with equipment and training to fight the Japanese. It was such a beating that even when their ally Germany went to war with the Soviets there was little real argument in Japan to attempt to push North. Even as the Germans smashed the Soviets in the early months of the war, Japan didn't dare push North. Because as impressive as the Japanese navy was, their army was still second rate, and could not match an industrial power in open war.
A better hypothetical here would be 'what if the Japanese hadn't been insanely cruel in China?' There was little real support for the warlords of the KMT, and the communists were not at that stage a functioning alternative, so what if Japan had managed to win over the Chinese population. Instead of seeing so many men and resources squandered in China, could a more successful invasion have they instead have gained men and resources, and maybe been in a better position to consolidate their holding in Asia?
As for the Nazis not existing, the outcome of World War I, including the Treaty of Versailles, and the rise of fascism in Italy would also have to be vastly different. IF the entente had lost World War I, who is to say there wouldn't have been French fascism and British National Socialism?
You can speculate a Nazi free Germany without having to go back to Versailles or the outcome of WWII. You could just propose that the Socialists win instead. Or that neither extremist faction takes hold, and eventual economic recovery sees a return to moderate politics.
But I do agree that if the result of WWI had been different and it was the entente that lost, then Nazism was at least as likely to rise in either France or Britain. Even without that, Nazism was at least as likely to rise in France. Automatically Appended Next Post: LordofHats wrote:Japan's only shots at winning in the Pacific were to follow up the damage done at Pearl Harbor with a decisive naval engagement (which they attempted at Midway and Coral Sea), but the Japanese Navy just couldn't bring this kind of engagement to conclude in their favor. Midway was a disaster for the IJN, all over a piece of land that was strategically useless to Japan. Coral Sea was the consequence of a Navy that continued to hold to the theory of the big gun ship when faced with a Navy that had few battleships but a good number of carriers.
Even if the Japanese had achieved their second decisive engagement (say, for instance, that the good luck enjoyed by the US at Midway went the other way), then the Japanese were really hoping that the US would put their tails between their legs and agree to grant the Japanese open season in the South Pacific. Because they certainly couldn't have even pretended at an invasion of mainland USA, so their only hope was that the Americans would just give up and sign a treaty.
And I think we all know that was never going to happen.
Destroying battleship row inadvertently helped the US win the Pacific war. Carriers at the time were cheaper and faster to produce, so we built them and it turns out that at the time the naval strategy of swarming a big gun fleet with planes just worked out marvelously.
That's not quite right. The US continued to build battleships through the war. And both sides continued to treat their battleships as key elements of their fleets, and remain wary of the threat of the major capital ships of the other side. It was only really in the aftermath of the war that the aircraft carrier was really acknowledged as the primary element of naval power.
53251
Post by: xole
Tadashi wrote: Jihadin wrote:Ugh. You know one of the last act of the military if Japan were going
to take over Hawaii is to destroy everything of military value. Drydock, fuel storage, military supplies, and basically everything of military use.
Then capture them...seize Hawaii, suppress the West Coast's shipyards, and close the Panama Canal.
"We would blow them up if they were going to capture them"
"then capture them"
7150
Post by: helgrenze
Watched an interesting Alt History film the other day..
"CSA; The Confederate States of America".
Basics, The Confederacy wins the Civil war then overruns the North. Canada becomes an enemy state, and the new government invades Central and South America. The country never enters the war in Europe as the government sees Hitler as an ally.
Interesting points come at the end of the film: The Confederacy basically needed ONE decisive victory to pull in support from England and France, and that is what makes the difference.
27391
Post by: purplefood
Tadashi wrote: purplefood wrote: Tadashi wrote: purplefood wrote:Submarine carriers?
The ones that could only carry 3 aircraft at a time?
What makes you think Japan wouldn't have improved the design (either of the submarine-carriers or the planes or the weapons) for a sustained effort to keep the Panama Canal closed.
Well it's not exactly a feasible technology at the time... I don't know if it's feasible now to be honest.
It'd also be a huge drain on resources.
You have to keep loads of submarines there at massive cost in fuel and probably munitions, not to mention casualties.
Whereas the US Navy just has to build loads of destroyers to sink the submarines. Which it could do...
Depends on how you use the submarine-carriers: if you avoid combat and concentrate on keeping the Gatun Locks destroyed andthe Canal's integrity, you wouldn't all that many of them...especially seeing as it would be a nightmare just sending ships through the Straits of Magellan in military terms, and with the West Coast's shipyards under interdiction.
Under interdiction from what?
More submarine carriers?
Just build more destroyers...
At the height of Germany's blockade on Britain the US was able to build more ships than the German U-boats could sink and they were really good at their job.
The Japanese submarine carriers reported fairly limited success as submarines let a lone carriers...
The US has the production capacity to out-build Japan.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Submarine carriers may be viable now, but only because of drone technology.
A Submarine can carry loads more drones then it can carry full sized aircraft.
Lets envision a submarine carrier that can carry some VTOL aircraft, cause thats the only sort of jet aircraft that will be able to take off and land on a Submarine.
The submarine is going to have to be HUGE to carry more then 4 of these things. You have to carry large amounts of fuel, lodging for the pilots, maintainance hangers, replacement parts, etc...
The sub will also have very little room for any secondary armament systems like Torpedos or Missiles. its sacrificing alot of firepower for less then half a dozen planes.
A huge sub that can carry a half dozen planes is going to be massive, its going to be hard to hide something like that. Even in the ocean. For a ship thats main advantage is surprise its not very good at hiding. Not to mention that its going to be an easy target once it is spotted.
Drones could make Subcarriers viable nowdays, but in the WW2 era they were nothing but a pipedream.
27391
Post by: purplefood
Grey Templar wrote:Submarine carriers may be viable now, but only because of drone technology.
A Submarine can carry loads more drones then it can carry full sized aircraft.
Lets envision a submarine carrier that can carry some VTOL aircraft, cause thats the only sort of jet aircraft that will be able to take off and land on a Submarine.
The submarine is going to have to be HUGE to carry more then 4 of these things. You have to carry large amounts of fuel, lodging for the pilots, maintainance hangers, replacement parts, etc...
The sub will also have very little room for any secondary armament systems like Torpedos or Missiles. its sacrificing alot of firepower for less then half a dozen planes.
A huge sub that can carry a half dozen planes is going to be massive, its going to be hard to hide something like that. Even in the ocean. For a ship thats main advantage is surprise its not very good at hiding. Not to mention that its going to be an easy target once it is spotted.
Drones could make Subcarriers viable nowdays, but in the WW2 era they were nothing but a pipedream.
I didn't think of drones...
5470
Post by: sebster
Glorioski wrote:Good for you.
I probably would take more interest if any of the other, many, questions raised by the OP's hypothetical situation were explored other than the boring 'How could America possible be beaten by Japan' one.
It's always seemed strange to me, given the immense amount luck enjoyed by the Axis powers in the early stages of WW2, that we get so little speculation on any of that going wrong.
Like, what if the Mechelen incident had never happened, and the Nazis had tried to drive through the low countries. Their officer corps was sorely lacking in training (having expanded from 100,000 to 5.5million troops in just a couple of years). They had very few MkIII or MkIV tanks, and only enough bombs for 14 days of operation for their planes. And they were marching straight into the plan the British and French were prepared for. Disaster was almost inevitable. So what then? Do the Soviets see the German state collapsing as an opportunity to advance West (or do they see the Winter War as enough of a warning that they are not ready?) Is Germany dismantled, or are they given another chance at liberal democracy?
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Hawaii-based Aircraft Carriers. Equipped with reverse-engineered technologies obtained from the Pearl Harbor Naval Yards...
5470
Post by: sebster
Grey Templar wrote:Wait what?
Whats the Titanic have to do with WW1?
Or is my sarcastic meter broken?
Well, Charles Lightoller was the most senior officer to survive the Titanic disaster, and later skippered his private yacht to help in the evacuation of British and French troops from Dunkirk. But other than that Titanic doesn't really have much to do with any war, near as I can figure.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
purplefood wrote: Grey Templar wrote:Submarine carriers may be viable now, but only because of drone technology.
A Submarine can carry loads more drones then it can carry full sized aircraft.
Lets envision a submarine carrier that can carry some VTOL aircraft, cause thats the only sort of jet aircraft that will be able to take off and land on a Submarine.
The submarine is going to have to be HUGE to carry more then 4 of these things. You have to carry large amounts of fuel, lodging for the pilots, maintainance hangers, replacement parts, etc...
The sub will also have very little room for any secondary armament systems like Torpedos or Missiles. its sacrificing alot of firepower for less then half a dozen planes.
A huge sub that can carry a half dozen planes is going to be massive, its going to be hard to hide something like that. Even in the ocean. For a ship thats main advantage is surprise its not very good at hiding. Not to mention that its going to be an easy target once it is spotted.
Drones could make Subcarriers viable nowdays, but in the WW2 era they were nothing but a pipedream.
I didn't think of drones...
Yeah, a Submarine Carrier could probably have at least a dozen, if not more, Drones. Possably a firepower comperable to a conventional carrier.
And the nice thing is, the Sub can move undetected, launch its drones, and then the Drones could wait in the airspace for weeks at a time while the Sub returns to a safe distance. Then the Drones can strike the targets, get picked back up and rearmed, and be back in the airspace within a few hours.
The Drones also eliminate the need for crew accomodations on the Sub. They only need crewmen to service and rearm the drones. Cutting back on the space needed in the sub.
5470
Post by: sebster
Grey Templar wrote:If we had invaded, the entire Island would likely have been annhilated. The entire populace was ready to fight, down to the last women and child.
That's a matter for debate. It was certainly believed to be true at the time, but then back then we didn't have much of a problem putting alien mindsets onto Asian people.
It probably would have ended up a really bloody, ugly invasion with loads of casualties on both sides, more or less like the Russian capture of Berlin. But most civilians would have probably fled the fighting, and looked first to protect their families, same as everywhere else in the world. Automatically Appended Next Post: Jihadin wrote:Ugh. You know one of the last act of the military if Japan were going to take over Hawaii is to destroy everything of military value. Drydock, fuel storage, military supplies, and basically everything of military use.
Maybe. Panic sets in, especially when people aren't pschologically ready for the invasion, or properly trained in the event it does. There's no shortage of stories of bridges, water supplies and munitions being captured when it simply should not have happened.
I think it's unlikely the Japanese could have captured meaningful levels of supplies from Pearl Harbour, but you can't just decide it never would have happened.
27391
Post by: purplefood
Tadashi wrote:
Hawaii-based Aircraft Carriers. Equipped with reverse-engineered technologies obtained from the Pearl Harbor Naval Yards...
Implying you have captured both the US technology and reserves of fuel...
I don't know about you but the first thing I would do if the enemy was going to capture massive reserves of fuel and some advanced technology is blow it all to hell...
Lets face it. Capturing the fuel reserves is not a certain thing, the technology? Maybe but even then it's not a certain thing.
I'm not sure whether or not it would be feasible for Japanese carriers to interdict American Dockyards...
5470
Post by: sebster
Tadashi wrote:What makes you think Japan wouldn't have improved the design (either of the submarine-carriers or the planes or the weapons) for a sustained effort to keep the Panama Canal closed?
As I already pointed out to you, that kind of sustained strategic operation was not in the thinking of Japanese officers at the time. Look at the incredible damage inflicted by US submarines on Japanese shipping into China. While their merchant fleet was being absolutely trashed the Japanese continued to give token escorts at best, all the while they kept their main fleet together trying to score a decisive engagement against the Americans.
Now you can speculate 'what if the Japanese had developed a long term understanding of the importance of industry in modern war?' Well then they probably would have developed an understanding of the importance of industry and economic growth in general, and focused on continuing reform of Japan's economy, and not gotten themselves involved in a stupid, pointless war. Automatically Appended Next Post: purplefood wrote:Implying you have captured both the US technology and reserves of fuel...
I don't know about you but the first thing I would do if the enemy was going to capture massive reserves of fuel and some advanced technology is blow it all to hell...
Lets face it. Capturing the fuel reserves is not a certain thing, the technology? Maybe but even then it's not a certain thing.
I'm not sure whether or not it would be feasible for Japanese carriers to interdict American Dockyards...
It's plausible that they captured both, but by no means likely, and certainly no guaranteed.
But if they captured US radar would they have even recognised the value of it? The US regarded it as little more than a toy at the time, despite its successful use by the British in the Battle of Britain. Iit was only in the wake of Pearl Harbour that they realised what might have been averted if they'd taken radar more seriously that they changed. Would the Japanese have seen the radar facility and thought 'here is a technology for telling you where the enemy planes are that we just captured from an enemy who had no idea where our planes were, so it clearly works great and we better spend our limited resources building as much of it as possible.'
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
purplefood wrote:
Under interdiction from what?
More submarine carriers?
Just build more destroyers...
At the height of Germany's blockade on Britain the US was able to build more ships than the German U-boats could sink and they were really good at their job.
The Japanese submarine carriers reported fairly limited success as submarines let a lone carriers...
The US has the production capacity to out-build Japan.
No, most likely the surface fleet would have to do the interdicting along the US west coast. It's hard to build ships if your slip ways are covered in bomb and shell craters, and there are a limited number of possible targets. Sen toku class boats were something of a Pie in the Sky idea that might have actually worked. In reality, without a viable US surface fleet, it would have been easier to deploy a squadron of light cruisers and maybe some Kongo class BBs, and shell it back to the stone age.
Jihadin wrote:Ugh. You know one of the last act of the military if Japan were going to take over Hawaii is to destroy everything of military value. Drydock, fuel storage, military supplies, and basically everything of military use.
In a Japanese invasion scenario, using the 14th Army:
To win the Japanese effectively would have to advance two miles inland. They have surprise, overwhelming air superiority, elite units trained specifically for amphibious ops, close fire support way beyond anything the US could hope to have with the battleships sunk, and outnumber the defenders 3 to 1. On top of that, the US Navy and Army spent a lot of time and money making the facilities very difficult to damage to fend off the possibility of sabotage by the large number of ethnic Japanese living in Hawaii. Hell, the fuel tanks at Red Hill were designed to withstand direct battleship fire without damage. The old Army Command center there, not so much.
I hate to say it, but the defenders around Pearl itself would have been over run faster then you can say 両手をあげろ！
There would be a better defense around Honolulu, and they might have been able to damage the civilian port facilities before being over run.
Remember, that Pearl's defenses very much revolved around the Navy and air power. Frankly, once an invader had boots on the ground, it was game over.
Galdos wrote:
So in other words, the US had superior technology in the transportation field allowing it to transport its MBT the M4 Sherman to battle zones while Japan is unable too. That actually supports what I just said thank you.
If by superior technology you mean 'scads more of them' sure. If by 'superior technology' you mean a direct ship to ship comparison... no. Further, the Sherman is not an MBT. THe MBT designation for tanks came about long after the Sherman left US service. The M4 was classified as a medium tank, which at the time meant that it was a direct fire support tank for the army. It's astonishingly lackluster ability when faced with contemporary tanks in it's own weight class led to thier nickname. Ronsons.
Galdos wrote:
And Ships, all the Allied ships were superior to their Axis counterparts, from the Fletcher class Destroyer to the Iowa class Battleships, to the American Carriers which after Midway, were being built with metal flight decks, not wood, something Japan continued with to the end of the war.
Well, point of fact, Japan built very few carriers at all between the beginning and end of the war, however the Taiho class had armored decks. Of the US carriers, only Yorktown, Essex and Midway class boats had armored decks.
While the Iowa class battleship was, in many ways, superior to most battleships, Iowa vs Bismark/Yamato class again is much more in doubt. If Japan or Germany had the industrial capability to produce the so called superbattleships and carriers in the sort of quantities that the US did, the US would have quickly lost the war.
Automatically Appended Next Post:  sebster wrote:
But if they captured US radar would they have even recognised the value of it? The US regarded it as little more than a toy at the time, despite its successful use by the British in the Battle of Britain. Iit was only in the wake of Pearl Harbour that they realised what might have been averted if they'd taken radar more seriously that they changed. Would the Japanese have seen the radar facility and thought 'here is a technology for telling you where the enemy planes are that we just captured from an enemy who had no idea where our planes were, so it clearly works great and we better spend our limited resources building as much of it as possible.'
Yamamoto would have had them working day and night on it, as it was a technology that would compliment his idea of how carriers and battleships worked together. Automatically Appended Next Post: Grey Templar wrote:
Drones could make Subcarriers viable nowdays, but in the WW2 era they were nothing but a pipedream.
Well, IIRC they built four of that pipe dream, and the US was so desperate to keep them out of Russian hands they scuttled them after capturing them. However, they were more or less designed for a single mission, the destruction of hte Panama Canal.
What's really viable again is airships. Consider a drone carrier capable of over one hundred thousand tons of lift. Now cover it in modern CIWS on a rigid airframe with variable prop engines.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
BaronIveagh wrote:
sebster wrote:
But if they captured US radar would they have even recognised the value of it? The US regarded it as little more than a toy at the time, despite its successful use by the British in the Battle of Britain. Iit was only in the wake of Pearl Harbour that they realised what might have been averted if they'd taken radar more seriously that they changed. Would the Japanese have seen the radar facility and thought 'here is a technology for telling you where the enemy planes are that we just captured from an enemy who had no idea where our planes were, so it clearly works great and we better spend our limited resources building as much of it as possible.'
Yamamoto would have had them working day and night on it, as it was a technology that would compliment his idea of how carriers and battleships worked together.
My thoughts exactly.
However, they were more or less designed for a single mission, the destruction of hte Panama Canal.
That aspect of them would not change. Automatically Appended Next Post: sebster wrote:
Now you can speculate 'what if the Japanese had developed a long term understanding of the importance of industry in modern war?' Well then they probably would have developed an understanding of the importance of industry and economic growth in general, and focused on continuing reform of Japan's economy, and not gotten themselves involved in a stupid, pointless war.
Now you can speculate 'what if the Americans had developed a complete understanding of the cultural differences in the world?' Well then they probably would have developed an understanding of the importance of 'leaving well enough alone', and focused on continuing reform of America's economy, and not gotten themselves involved in a stupid, pointless war in the Middle East.
5470
Post by: sebster
BaronIveagh wrote:No, most likely the surface fleet would have to do the interdicting along the US west coast. It's hard to build ships if your slip ways are covered in bomb and shell craters, and there are a limited number of possible targets. Sen toku class boats were something of a Pie in the Sky idea that might have actually worked. In reality, without a viable US surface fleet, it would have been easier to deploy a squadron of light cruisers and maybe some Kongo class BBs, and shell it back to the stone age.
Seriously? Direct naval action against major port facilities?
You do know how terrible an idea the allies thought that was, even with the combined might of the Atlantic fleet. And you are aware that planes can take off from land, and make any idea of sitting a boat off the West coast of the USA look incredibly stupid very quickly.
Yamamoto would have had them working day and night on it, as it was a technology that would compliment his idea of how carriers and battleships worked together.
You make that sound as if Yamamoto would have been magically, instantly aware of the capabilities of the technology, which is a massive stretch given the reason I already stated - people do not see the power of a technology that the only captured because the enemy failed to use that technology at all.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Oddly, men Like MacArthur and Nimitz were not entirely certain of Victory. I think they were better judges of it than anyoen in this thread.
MacArthur and Nimitz didn't have the advantage of hindsight.
Tadashi wrote:1) Capturing the oil depots at Hawaii would have given the fleet enough resources to maintain an extended North Pacific campaign, and the SE Asian oil fields would just be a bonus.
I guess no one at all here realizes the logistical horror of operate a fleet across 3000 miles of ocean to Hawaii while simultaneously engaged in the south pacific and Indian ocean. It would take all the oil just to defend the area. They'd never have the ability to launch raids, or attack at all. This is a fantasy that belies any realistic sense of reality. Japan could at best hold Hawaii for a year before something forced them out.
2) Japan would have used the Naval Yards not just to salvage the sunken fleet, but also to refit their fleet with reverse-engineered radar and other advanced technologies obtained at Hawaii.
They already had radar... They just never put them in their planes which really they couldn't do. There's a reason that the Zero and almost every Japanese plane had nearly no protection and its because of the limited access to metals. You can't build radar without rare earths which Japan didn't have in abundance. They can get the technology but it does them little good. They can't really implement it.
3) The submarine base would have sped up development of the submarine carriers - which would close Panama, preventing any ships, troops, or supplies from moving from the Atlantic to the Pacific, unless the USN was willing to risk the Straits of Magellan.
Why are you obsessed with the absurdity of a submarine carrier? Because you saw it in a cartoon and thought it was cool?
4) Carriers based from Hawaii could launch hit and run strikes against Naval Yards up and down the West Coast with little fear of retribution - the Pacific is vast, and the fleet would have been refitted with radar technology.
No. They couldn't. They really really couldn't. This is a very easy concept to understand. The oil supply at Pearl would be a great steal for Japan but in the end the oil in the SE islands is mostly unobtainable at this time period. The means to extract the oil were limited and Japan only had access to a single refinery at Satsuma. That's 1500 miles that they need to transport an extremely limited oil supply to their own main refinery, and then 3000 more to transport it to Hawaii, another 2000 to get it to the islands of the South Pacific, and another 1500 to get it back to South East Asia. They will burn up, every single once of oil, just moving their limited supply around.
And little fear of retribution? Hello land based airfields loaded with planes.
5) As Baron pointed out, once Pearl Harbor was lost, any ships at sea would have minimal chance to reach the West Coast at all.
They would have just harvested the fuel of smaller ships and would have reached the coast, as he also pointed out (I don't know if that's true I just assume its not made up). Of course, those ships don't exist in a vacuum where losing Pearl means they have no help at all. The carriers and any ships with them could probably at least limp within range of land based ships that could get to them and bring them back before Japan was freed up from Hawaii to retaliate, saving the carriers and keeping them in the pacific.
But this invasion idea is absurd. The operation to attack Pearl was not a secret to the US, it just wasn't taken seriously. We knew their fleet wasn't in port because the US ambassador could see the fleet from the embassy and reported its departure. They kept everything quiet and we assumed it as a training exercise for their fleet. If an entire army, also disappeared with that fleet, it's a massive red flag that something is up and its probable that MAGIC intercepts suggesting an attack would have been taken more seriously. An army cannot disappear and go unnoticed by anyone.
Tadashi wrote:What makes you think Japan wouldn't have improved the design (either of the submarine-carriers or the planes or the weapons) for a sustained effort to keep the Panama Canal closed?
Because its a infeasible design. Why do you think no one operates any submersible aircraft carriers today? Its expensive enough to build a normal carrier, making it submersible is 1 redundant because it doesn't improve its ability to deploy aircraft at all 2 mechanically absurd.
Tadashi wrote:Then capture them...seize Hawaii, suppress the West Coast's shipyards, and close the Panama Canal.
They wouldn't be able to suppress the west coast. They had no planes that could reach that far, and contrary to what some people seem to be thinking about how having oil takes you anywhere you want to go, they would not be able to go another 2000 miles to the US west coast and do anything for very long, let alone all the way to the panama canal and blockade it. Some people in this thread seem to have no idea how much oil you actually need to operate a fleet 5000 miles from home when there is almost no supply to back it up. Japan could never maintain the logistics of such a campaign, they would know that, and they'd never try it. Their Navy was much better in that field than their Army.
sebster wrote:A better hypothetical here would be 'what if the Japanese hadn't been insanely cruel in China?' There was little real support for the warlords of the KMT, and the communists were not at that stage a functioning alternative, so what if Japan had managed to win over the Chinese population. Instead of seeing so many men and resources squandered in China, could a more successful invasion have they instead have gained men and resources, and maybe been in a better position to consolidate their holding in Asia?
That actually is an interesting question. I'd need to look up how Japan felt about the end of the Sino-Japanese war, and the colonial days before the second began. If the Japanese were nicer, my initial thought isn't wide support but that they wouldn't encounter much resistance.
LordofHats wrote:Even if the Japanese had achieved their second decisive engagement (say, for instance, that the good luck enjoyed by the US at Midway went the other way), then the Japanese were really hoping that the US would put their tails between their legs and agree to grant the Japanese open season in the South Pacific. Because they certainly couldn't have even pretended at an invasion of mainland USA, so their only hope was that the Americans would just give up and sign a treaty.
And I think we all know that was never going to happen.
Well yeah. Like I said, the advantage of hindsight. In end nothing was gonna win Japan the war. Once FDR got committed it seems he was really committed to victory. Of course, the pointless seizure of Hawaii would only reinforce that outcome.
That's not quite right. The US continued to build battleships through the war. And both sides continued to treat their battleships as key elements of their fleets, and remain wary of the threat of the major capital ships of the other side. It was only really in the aftermath of the war that the aircraft carrier was really acknowledged as the primary element of naval power.
It wasn't a conscious decision on our part its just something that happened. We laid down carriers to expand the fleet and they got finished first and went out to join the fleet before the new battleships were ready. I don't think anyone even considered that this had happened and what it meant until the 70's.
BaronIveagh wrote:No, most likely the surface fleet would have to do the interdicting along the US west coast. It's hard to build ships if your slip ways are covered in bomb and shell craters, and there are a limited number of possible targets. Sen toku class boats were something of a Pie in the Sky idea that might have actually worked. In reality, without a viable US surface fleet, it would have been easier to deploy a squadron of light cruisers and maybe some Kongo class BBs, and shell it back to the stone age.
Its actually not. Once your at war, and with an enemy who has no strategic bombing force and can only engage you with fleet based aircraft, patrol ships can spot their fleet and run away before being attacked and dockyards can be reinforced with AA defense. Flak makes mincemeat of Japanese aircraft in WWII. And since they can't carry any significant ordnance, well...
This of course assumes Japan can launched the attacks. Again, the oil just isn't there. They're fighting too many enemies on too many sides with extremely limited resources. The oil supply couldn't sustain such a war effort, which the staff officers of the IJN would realize and as a result they'd never take that course of action.
In a Japanese invasion scenario, using the 14th Army:
And I suppose there's some logic to support how the Navy and an Army can disappear off communications and not be taken as a sign by anyone with a brain? The disappearance of the Japanese fleet can be overlooked by the unprepared as "meh, its probably nothing" but a fleet and an army, and the amphibious craft to land that army?
Galdos wrote:If by superior technology you mean 'scads more of them' sure. If by 'superior technology' you mean a direct ship to ship comparison... no. Further, the Sherman is not an MBT. THe MBT designation for tanks came about long after the Sherman left US service. The M4 was classified as a medium tank, which at the time meant that it was a direct fire support tank for the army. It's astonishingly lackluster ability when faced with contemporary tanks in it's own weight class led to thier nickname. Ronsons.
The Sherman's negative reputation is another advantage we gain from hindsight. It was a highly effective tank, even against its own weight class against Panzer IV's in Europe.
Galdos wrote:Well, point of fact, Japan built very few carriers at all between the beginning and end of the war, however the Taiho class had armored decks. Of the US carriers, only Yorktown, Essex and Midway class boats had armored decks.
While the Iowa class battleship was, in many ways, superior to most battleships, Iowa vs Bismark/Yamato class again is much more in doubt. If Japan or Germany had the industrial capability to produce the so called superbattleships and carriers in the sort of quantities that the US did, the US would have quickly lost the war.
That's like saying "if Germany and Japan were anyone else with the ability to maintain a long war effort" at which point what are we really talking about? The reality is that both Japan ad Germany lacked the natural resources to maintain their forces over time.
sebster wrote:
But if they captured US radar would they have even recognised the value of it? The US regarded it as little more than a toy at the time, despite its successful use by the British in the Battle of Britain. Iit was only in the wake of Pearl Harbour that they realised what might have been averted if they'd taken radar more seriously that they changed. Would the Japanese have seen the radar facility and thought 'here is a technology for telling you where the enemy planes are that we just captured from an enemy who had no idea where our planes were, so it clearly works great and we better spend our limited resources building as much of it as possible.'
Yamamoto would have had them working day and night on it, as it was a technology that would compliment his idea of how carriers and battleships worked together.
Yamamoto unfortunately was not popular with the Japanese government. The officer who represented the Navy in the cabinet actually hated him and was a proponent of big gun ships, like most of the Japanese navy at the time. Yamamoto was popular for his leadership and ability, but he was pretty much alone in his military in terms of naval theory. He had few supports. So while Yamamoto may have realized its value (I'm sure the Japanese in general may have realized its value) that doesn't mean he'd get support for implementing it. Of course, ignoring that the Japanese could not build sophisticated radar systems, let alone to the extend of the USN anyway.
Now cover it in modern CIWS on a rigid airframe with variable prop engines.
Hello missiles. I'm an easy target. Shoot me. Rigid airships might rise again as a means of cheap transport compared to commercial jets, but the military application of a large airship is highly limited.
And no. Drone based doesn't help their case. We have ballistic missile subs now, so if the point is a submersible platform from which to attack a target at range, a missile does the job much better and doesn't force the submarine to surface. A carrier has a highly specialized job: to maintain air support over a region. If this task is to be achieved, it would force any carrier that could submerge itself to remain on the surface for long periods of time to launch and retrieve its aircraft negating the point of being able to submerge. The reality of a carrier is that it gains nothing by being able to go underwater. Likewise, submarines aren't really improved by the ability to launch aircraft. And those both ignore the mechanical complexity of a submersible launch deck.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Tadashi wrote:Now you can speculate 'what if the Americans had developed a complete understanding of the cultural differences in the world?' Well then they probably would have developed an understanding of the importance of 'leaving well enough alone', and focused on continuing reform of America's economy, and not gotten themselves involved in a stupid, pointless war in the Middle East.
Besides not being a comparable statement at all, it also has the value of having nothing to do with WWII.
5470
Post by: sebster
You still haven't commented on my point that the Japanese command had no consideration for concepts of long term strategic war like that you're planning here. I suspect this is because you don't really like dealing with anything that challenges your idea of a gloriouss Japanese Empire.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
sebster wrote: BaronIveagh wrote:No, most likely the surface fleet would have to do the interdicting along the US west coast. It's hard to build ships if your slip ways are covered in bomb and shell craters, and there are a limited number of possible targets. Sen toku class boats were something of a Pie in the Sky idea that might have actually worked. In reality, without a viable US surface fleet, it would have been easier to deploy a squadron of light cruisers and maybe some Kongo class BBs, and shell it back to the stone age.
Seriously? Direct naval action against major port facilities? You do know how terrible an idea the allies thought that was, even with the combined might of the Atlantic fleet. And you are aware that planes can take off from land, and make any idea of sitting a boat off the West coast of the USA look incredibly stupid very quickly.
Right...as if the ships would just sit in the same place all the time Yamamoto would have had them working day and night on it, as it was a technology that would compliment his idea of how carriers and battleships worked together.
You make that sound as if Yamamoto would have been magically, instantly aware of the capabilities of the technology, which is a massive stretch given the reason I already stated - people do not see the power of a technology that the only captured because the enemy failed to use that technology at all.
Why not? The man was a genius. sebster wrote: You still haven't commented on my point that the Japanese command had no consideration for concepts of long term strategic war like that you're planning here. I suspect this is because you don't really like dealing with anything that challenges your idea of a gloriouss Japanese Empire.
Why should I? Especially when most people from the USA tend to avoid the dirt the US government's been sweeping under the carpet ever since your upstart nation came into being?
241
Post by: Ahtman
That isn't how genius works. Being a brilliant strategist doesn't make one suddenly an engineer, and vice-versa.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
 Ahtman wrote: That isn't how genius works. Being a brilliant strategist doesn't make one suddenly an engineer, and vice-versa.
But it would certainly allow him to see the advantages of such a system.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Tadashi wrote: Ahtman wrote:
That isn't how genius works. Being a brilliant strategist doesn't make one suddenly an engineer, and vice-versa.
But it would certainly allow him to see the advantages of such a system.
If they knew what it was and how it worked, which at the time, they did not. It wasn't like they had a chance to observe it in action. He couldn't place his hands on it and by osmosis suddenly understood it's functions and capabilities. I'm not a military genius and I can tell you the advantages of such a system once it's capabilities are known.
I wouldn't trust your judgement on small groups of people in the USA, let alone silly statements about 'most'.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Tadashi wrote:Right...as if the ships would just sit in the same place all the time
When launching aircraft in WWII, actually you'd be surprised. A fleet can't move very far in a few hours and really shouldn't if it expects its aircraft to come back. Add in that US aircraft had longer ranges than Japanese, and the advantage of land based fields.
Why not? The man was a genius.
Doesn't make him magic.
Tadashi wrote:
Why should I? Especially when most people from the USA tend to avoid the dirt the US government's been sweeping under the carpet ever since your upstart nation came into being?
Because reality and fantasy are very different things, and that's not really a reason to avoid reality. It's just snippy
Tadashi wrote:But it would certainly allow him to see the advantages of such a system.
I think you're trivializing him too much. Yamamoto wasn't magic. He was certainly more correct about the future of naval warfare than his contemporaries in the IJN, but he was actually very wrong about a lot of things. He didn't think submarines were that useful as a weapon, and believed that big gun ships would still be needed to support a naval air arm, which... They aren't. That said, his plans weren't flawless either.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Ahtman wrote: Tadashi wrote: Ahtman wrote: That isn't how genius works. Being a brilliant strategist doesn't make one suddenly an engineer, and vice-versa.
But it would certainly allow him to see the advantages of such a system.
If they knew what it was and how it worked, which at the time, they did not. It wasn't like they had a chance to observe it in action. He couldn't place his hands on it and by osmosis suddenly understood it's functions and capabilities.
Uh-huh...as if acquiring the device and not looking for the instruction manual or something along that line is how Naval Intelligence works. Ahtman wrote: I wouldn't trust your judgement on small groups of people in the USA, let alone silly statements about 'most'.
The fact your government can and does certain things in a similar manner to what dictatorships do, indicates a critical flaw in your 'democratic' system.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Tadashi wrote:Uh-huh...as if acquiring the device and not looking for the instruction manual or something along that line is how Naval Intelligence works.
Believe it or not, the men operating radar stations on Hawaii, actually didn't even understand how to turn them on!
51396
Post by: Tadashi
LordofHats wrote: Tadashi wrote:Uh-huh...as if acquiring the device and not looking for the instruction manual or something along that line is how Naval Intelligence works.
Believe it or not, the men operating radar stations on Hawaii, actually didn't even understand how to turn them on!
Because they didn't read the technical data that came with the device from the British that was probably just lying around.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Tadashi wrote:Because they didn't read the technical data that came with the device from the British that was just lying around.
The army had the manual but that doesn't mean the men actually at the stations were given the manual. Two of the radar stations were not issued manuals (this actually happened quite frequently in the US military well into the 50's). The machines were turned on by some of the engineers who installed them, and then some guys just got sat down and were given an extremely basic tutorial on operating the machine. There's a lot of switches on those old model radars. They actually had to radio in to ask where buttons were several times over the few weeks leading up to the attack.
A manual also isn't a strategic essay on the usefulness of a piece of equipment. It's just a guide to its use, and wouldn't detail the hard science on how it worked.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
LordofHats wrote: Tadashi wrote:Because they didn't read the technical data that came with the device from the British that was just lying around.
The army had the manual but that doesn't mean the men actually at the stations were given the manual. Two of the radar stations were not issued manuals (this actually happened quite frequently in the US military well into the 50's). The machines were turned on by some of the engineers who installed them, and then some guys just got sat down and were given an extremely basic tutorial on operating the machine.
As if Naval Intelligence would be stupid enough not to salvage anything of value from the Army/Engineer's areas on Hawaii.
A manual also isn't a strategic essay on the usefulness of a piece of equipment. It's just a guide to its use, and wouldn't detail the hard science on how it worked.
No, but the engineers who would be studying and using the device would relay this information to Command...I've said it before: the Admiral was a genius.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
Tadashi wrote:
The fact your government can and does certain things in a similar manner to what dictatorships do, indicates a critical flaw in your 'democratic' system.
Oh please, Tadashi, please enlighten us as to why the US is basically an 'upstart dictatorship'?
Oh, and could you please use more references to that great well of knowledge that is your anime collection? Because it really lends credence to your arguments.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
 Kovnik Obama wrote: Tadashi wrote:
The fact your government can and does certain things in a similar manner to what dictatorships do, indicates a critical flaw in your 'democratic' system.
Oh please, Tadashi, please enlighten us as to why the US is basically an 'upstart dictatorship'?
Tell me...what happened to those Americans who remained loyal to the British during the American Revolution? Why the American Indians were forced from their native lands and have yet to receive just recompense for all their sufferings? Or why the Air Force Generals responsible for the fire-bombing that killed millions were never tried? Or President Truman who ordered the use of nuclear weapons for that matter. The use of chemical agents in Vietnam. Why the issue of Guantanamo Bay is avoided by the US military and politicians? As to why the War in Iraq failed to find the WMDs that Saddam was supposed to be stockpiling? And why does every time another country gets an economic advantage, the US complains about cut throat business?
Why do Latin Americans hate the US? Why do Russians and Chinese distrust them? Why do even their allies in Europe and Asia consider them with caution?
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Tadashi wrote:As if Naval Intelligence would be stupid enough not to salvage anything out of value from the Army/Engineer's area on Hawaii.
If they're going to magically invade Hawaii, they'd probably end up destroying a lot of stuff. Materials would surely survive, but as has been pointed out, having examples doesn't equate to realizing strategic and tactical value of a system. The Battle of Britain showed the value of radar but it wasn't until the 1950's that it was actually proposed that radar had been vital to victory. Prior to that, most people assumed a combination of British badassness and German silliness were the only key factors. Radar as a system was something that countries developed independently for a great deal of time, and there wasn't much discourse before WWII on the technology. Everyone had it, and thought it was useful, but not until later in the war did anyone start thinking what they really had.
the Admiral was a genius.
...
That doesn't make him able to do anything... I'm not saying he couldn't realize the value. Its possible he could have imo but not given (I actually think its more a given that there's not much that Japan could do with the technology due to limited production capability, making having it kind of moot). Being a genius doesn't make somebody magic just by the virtue of being a 'genius.'
Why do Latin Americans hate the US? Why do Russians and Chinese distrust them? Why do even their allies in Europe and Asia consider them with caution?
...
Russia and China distrust us because they distrust everyone...
Europe doesn't consider us with caution, they just don't necessarily like us bullying other states around, which we do at times but then who doesn't? All states bully their neighbors or try to. The US can just do it world wide. Its just the nature of politics at times.
Latine America doesn't 'hate' the US. Don't buy into that Chavez crap. We aren't super popular down there in some places, but most people are too busy hating their own governments to hate ours. Which btw, do you not pay attention to any of the illegal immigrant discussions on this board? Where do you think the vast majority of them are coming from?
54773
Post by: Galdos
BaronIveagh wrote:
To win the Japanese effectively would have to advance two miles inland. They have surprise, overwhelming air superiority, elite units trained specifically for amphibious ops, close fire support way beyond anything the US could hope to have with the battleships sunk, and outnumber the defenders 3 to 1. On top of that, the US Navy and Army spent a lot of time and money making the facilities very difficult to damage to fend off the possibility of sabotage by the large number of ethnic Japanese living in Hawaii. Hell, the fuel tanks at Red Hill were designed to withstand direct battleship fire without damage. The old Army Command center there, not so much.
I hate to say it, but the defenders around Pearl itself would have been over run faster then you can say 両手をあげろ！
There would be a better defense around Honolulu, and they might have been able to damage the civilian port facilities before being over run.
Remember, that Pearl's defenses very much revolved around the Navy and air power. Frankly, once an invader had boots on the ground, it was game over.
Oh no one is debating if Hawaii could have been taken. That was well within Japans power to take Hawaii. Casaulties would have been horrible though. Not the point, Lossing Hawaii would have been horrible for the Allies but it was actually something the Allies could afford to lose.
If by superior technology you mean 'scads more of them' sure. If by 'superior technology' you mean a direct ship to ship comparison... no. Further, the Sherman is not an MBT. THe MBT designation for tanks came about long after the Sherman left US service. The M4 was classified as a medium tank, which at the time meant that it was a direct fire support tank for the army. It's astonishingly lackluster ability when faced with contemporary tanks in it's own weight class led to thier nickname. Ronsons.
Im sorry I have no idea what you are saying here.
I use the term MBT litterally, not as the offical name. The main battle tank of the USA was the Sherman Tank. It was a medium yes but that doesnt mean anything. Likewise the main battle tank of German was the Panzer 4. Oh ya they had a lot of Panthers and other tanks but the tank most likely to be seen (Im sorry, after Africa) would be the Panzer 4.
It was surprising a good tank once the crewmen learned from their experience. Ya in Africa it was a disastor and they performed horrible against the Tiger heavy tank. However there are different model Shermans. The ones that went into Normandy had wet ammo racks that almost completely prevented the ammo problem. The 75mm could penetrate any German Tank with the exception of the Tiger, the 76mm Could effectivelly penetrate the Tiger at moderate range.
The Sherman was reliable, easy to repair in the case it was damaged, good agility. Its biggest problem was dealing with German Heavies (something that rarely occured) Anything that you would throw at a Sherman would destroy a Panzer 4. When compared to Tigers ya the Sherman may seem like it sucks, but when you compare it to the most common tank of the German army, you discover the Sherman is dead even.
Which is LEAGUES better than the Japenesse armor. You say the Japs only have light tanks, no true medium tanks. That means the Americans simply win in the tank technology comparison.
Well, point of fact, Japan built very few carriers at all between the beginning and end of the war, however the Taiho class had armored decks. Of the US carriers, only Yorktown, Essex and Midway class boats had armored decks.
Mkay so my point still stands, most of the American Aircaft carriers used in the war with Japan had armor decks. I believe the Yorktown was the last carrier that was destroyed that did not have an armor deck (which was the 3rd carrier lost?) Saratoga I am unsure what the nature of its destruction was.
While the Iowa class battleship was, in many ways, superior to most battleships, Iowa vs Bismark/Yamato class again is much more in doubt. If Japan or Germany had the industrial capability to produce the so called superbattleships and carriers in the sort of quantities that the US did, the US would have quickly lost the war.
Oh yes the Yamato and Bismark were both amazing ships. Problem is that only 2 of each type existed. The main battleships when compared with each other, the American ones were usually better. Not that this matters sense the battleships only fought against each other once in the whole war in a true navel battle and the US decimated the Japs. (Japs sailed into an ambush against several of the repaired BBs from Pearl Harbor, I believe only 2, maybe 3 were completely lost to the US for the war at Pearl Harbor)
Yamamoto would have had them working day and night on it, as it was a technology that would compliment his idea of how carriers and battleships worked together.
First they have to capture the radar, which in itself would be impressive sense the only radar the US had a Pearl Harbor was located in a national park and not designed for ship usage and the crew were prepared to destroy it to prevent capture. Second Yamamoto would need to see the value of it AND convince R&D to work on it. No one was truelly sure of how useful Radar was except for the Brits at this time. Japan wasnt even sure if aircraft carriers were a good idea.
In short, the US had a major technology advantage against the Japense in every field of war. The one thing Japan had going for them was that their soldiers were simply better and they had a fleet ready to fight while America had to build one.
Pearl Harbor did NOT have that many valuable technology items that Japan could use. The few radar sites were NOT located on base giving the people there PLENTY of time to destroy the equipment (which they had very strict standing orders, even a hint of an invasion and they were supose to destroy the stuff) The American ships at Pearl Harbor were all.... okay. The ships located at Pearl Harbor were some of the older model ships in the USN. Things like the Fletcher Class Destroyers and Atlanta class Cruisers were located state side and just starting major production. The Marines in the Pacific hadnt recieved a lot of their good weapons yet making do with bolt action rifles. The planes at Pearl Harbor... Japan had better ones. Pearl Harbor can repair ships, it will not be making them. Pearl Harbor were take a MASSIVE effort by Japan to repair the facility that would give the US needed time to make its fleet. What ultimately ends up happening is History is change, the Invasion of Italy is put on hold for who no how long and the Battle of the Atlantic takes longer to win as the US is forced to concentrate its navy in the Pacific.
Ultimately its not a question of "can" the US win but a question of how long. Yamamoto said the ONLY way to destroy America was to destroy the entire Pacific fleet in one action,, win a serious of important victories quickly, and hope the US agrees to surrender. The US had to be defeated in 6 months or the US will simply out produce the Japs.
The American Carriers were not located at Pearl Harbor, launching a 3rd wave would be pointless because the mission was a failure in the eyes of Yamamto and Nagumo who was the one who called off the attack. Conquering Pearl Harbor requires manpower be taken from else where. You can pick from where but as we would see in the war, Japan needed all of those men. Japan's inability to take Wake Island or the Philippines or New Gunie in a timely matter gave the Americans hope. Hope, revenge, techonolgy, industrial might, and battle tactics. That is why Japan was screwed.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
LordofHats wrote:
Latine America doesn't 'hate' the US. Don't buy into that Chavez crap. We aren't super popular down there in some places, but most people are too busy hating their own governments to hate ours. Which btw, do you not pay attention to any of the illegal immigrant discussions on this board? Where do you think the vast majority of them are coming from?
Oh yes, they do...otherwise, more pro-American politicians would be elected.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Its like you think they actually have elections in a lot of south American countries.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
Tadashi wrote:Tell me...what happened to those Americans who remained loyal to the British during the American Revolution?
They came to Canada. I should know, I have to hear about their fething Queen everytime she farts our general direction.
Why the American Indians were forced from their native lands and have yet to receive just recompense for all their sufferings?
Doesn't make the US a dictatorship.
Or why the Air Force Generals responsible for the fire-bombing that killed millions were never tried? Or President Truman who ordered the use of nuclear weapons for that matter. The use of chemical agents in Vietnam. Why the issue of Guantanamo Bay is avoided by the US military and politicians? As to why the War in Iraq failed to find the WMDs that Saddam was supposed to be stockpiling? And why does every time another country gets an economic advantage, the US complains about cut throat business?
Lol. That's not even in their country... A democracy can be as much a dick as anyone else in a war. Like I've said many time, you'd gain a lot by picking up a book about politics.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Kovnik Obama wrote:
Lol. That's not even in their country... A democracy can be as much a dick as anyone else in a war. Like I've said many time, you'd gain a lot by picking up a book about politics.
They may not be a dictatorship...but they sure as hell act like one.
54773
Post by: Galdos
I wish I had my friends book about the war in the Pacific. We learned a lot of interesting things about everyone's opinions of each other during the war.
I particullarly liked what the Average Jap infantryman thought of the basic American grunt. It had to do with how America ran like a well oiled machine which they found so strange. How the US would always conduct offensive operations the same way each time. He couldnt argue with it but he found it very unsual
May I ask why we are trying to provoke Tadashi to bash on the US? I thought this started with a simple request on his part for us to think what the world would be like in certain alternate realites. Nothing wrong with that. The main point of the thread was derailed at the fact that the original idea was simply extremely improbable but nothing wrong with it.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Tadashi wrote:They may not be a dictatorship...but they sure as hell act like one.
I get the impression that maybe the problem is that you have no idea what a dictatorship is.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
Or any idea relating to politics outside of what anime has shown him.
Unfortunately for him, Hyakka Ryouran isn't real.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
I have to admit Tadashi. You crack me up at times
51396
Post by: Tadashi
At the least someone enjoys himself... Galdos wrote: May I ask why we are trying to provoke Tadashi to bash on the US? I thought this started with a simple request on his part for us to think what the world would be like in certain alternate realites. Nothing wrong with that. The main point of the thread was derailed at the fact that the original idea was simply extremely improbable but nothing wrong with it.
Because most people thinks I'm wrong...even in alternate reality. Seeing as democracy has failed in my mother's country and in many others...I believe in more traditional forms of governance.
54773
Post by: Galdos
Mkay lets trying going back on topic. No more America or Tadashi bashing today please
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Galdos wrote:Mkay lets trying going back on topic. No more America or Tadashi bashing today please
Alright then...alternate timeline... Yamamoto takes control, pulls Japan out of the mainland (except for Korea), concentrates on seizing SE Asia and the Pacific, destroying US Assets in the Pacific and bottling them up their assets in the Atlantic, and accelerating technological development/industrialization...let's start from here.
54773
Post by: Galdos
Tadashi wrote: Galdos wrote:Mkay lets trying going back on topic. No more America or Tadashi bashing today please
Alright then...alternate timeline...
Yamamoto takes control, pulls Japan out of the mainland (except for Korea), concentrates on seizing SE Asia and the Pacific, destroying US Assets in the Pacific and bottling them up their assets in the Atlantic, and accelerating technological development/industrialization...let's start from here.
Okay Im not trying to be mean or bashing but my response to this is, why even bother declaring war on America? China was the goal, America was preventing Japan from building the Empire it wanted by providing aid to China and withholding oil from Japan. If Japan pulled out of China, no reason to bomb Pearl Harbor because the US would be happy. So thats where we should take it.
What if Japan never invaded China...
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Galdos wrote: Tadashi wrote: Galdos wrote:Mkay lets trying going back on topic. No more America or Tadashi bashing today please
Alright then...alternate timeline...
Yamamoto takes control, pulls Japan out of the mainland (except for Korea), concentrates on seizing SE Asia and the Pacific, destroying US Assets in the Pacific and bottling them up their assets in the Atlantic, and accelerating technological development/industrialization...let's start from here.
Okay Im not trying to be mean or bashing but my response to this is, why even bother declaring war on America? China was the goal, America was preventing Japan from building the Empire it wanted by providing aid to China and withholding oil from Japan. If Japan pulled out of China, no reason to bomb Pearl Harbor because the US would be happy. So thats where we should take it.
What if Japan never invaded China...
Alright...Hitler dies in a car accident, so no Nazi Germany...but since nothing stood in his way in the West, Stalin invades Western Europe and China. Yamamoto gets the backing he needs to launch a coup to replace the over-eager and suicidal Generals who want to fight the Soviets, but is forced to concede his support for a Pacific campaign to give Japan offshore (even Korea is abandoned) territory and resources for a war against the USSR, while the Chinese and Koreans are sacrificed to buy time for Japan to expand and advance its technology.
35352
Post by: prime12357
Well, the IJN was not really able to compete with the USN in head-to-head combat, and would have a helluva time destroying the USN's assets in the Pacific. The Battle of the Coral Sea (May 4-8, 1942) was essentially a tie, and the Battle of Midway (a month later, June 4-9) was a resounding victory for the USN, effectively breaking the back of the IJN. Coral Sea, compared to Midway, was a much smaller engagement, with five aircraft carriers involved, and resulted in a pyrrhic victory for the Japanese. The fleet dispositions in the Battle of Midway were in favor of the Japanese, with four carriers available, as well as two battleships in support (but at this point, battleships are useless). The United States Navy had only three carriers, but had the home-field advantage, if you will, with support from the Midway airfield. Even with inferior aircraft (the F4F wildcat was disappointingly underpowered, slower and less maneuverable, as well as slower in the climb than the Zero) the superior tactics and training of the US pilots really smacked down the Japanese.
Even if an invasion of Hawaii could be executed properly, it would have had very little support at all, and could be rather quickly put out of its misery, pending support from the production powerhouses in the US.
Japan might have been able to delay the inevitable, but defeat was really the only outcome. Like a pugnacious twelve-year old picking a fight with a MMA fighter, we all know who's going to win...
Galdos wrote:What if Japan never invaded China...
I don't know how much of a possibility that would be. To the best of my understanding, the driving force behind Japan's expantion into the Pacific was the same group behind the invasion of China. A Japanese empire in the Pacific makes an invasion of the Chinese mainland seem inevitable, and without a Japanese empire, we've got no thread
51396
Post by: Tadashi
 prime12357 wrote:
Japan might have been able to delay the inevitable, but defeat was really the only outcome. Like a pugnacious twelve-year old picking a fight with a MMA fighter, we all know who's going to win...
How about a smart twelve-year old who plays to his strengths?
50512
Post by: Jihadin
How about a smart twelve-year old who plays to his strengths?
Seriously Tadashi....you think a twelve year old can take out a MMA fighter.....
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Jihadin wrote:How about a smart twelve-year old who plays to his strengths?
Seriously Tadashi....you think a twelve year old can take out a MMA fighter.....
If it turned out like Home Alone, yes.
5470
Post by: sebster
Tadashi wrote:Right...as if the ships would just sit in the same place all the time
Well, San Francisco bay isn't moving anywhere... if you want to directly engage it with light cruisers you have to go to where it is. And then you can look surprised when the air response makes your boats not float anymore.
Go look at pictures of the Atlantic fleet on D-Day. See the range of ships they had on hand to guard against German air power. And German air power had been greatly reduced by the combat in Russia, and the allies could launch air cover from bases in London, while the only possible air cover for the Japanese would come from their carriers.
So just stop this. It's silly.
Why not? The man was a genius.
So is that what this is? Yamamoto idolisation.
Look, he was a skilled commander, but that doesn't make him a God among men. It doesn't mean you can construct a sensible alternate history by saying 'then Yamamoto made this awesome strategic decision, then he immediately recognised the value of this technology that had just been utterly useless in the hands of the enemy, then he...'
That's not alt-history, that's fan fiction.
sebster wrote:Why should I? Especially when most people from the USA tend to avoid the dirt the US government's been sweeping under the carpet ever since your upstart nation came into being?
What, is your point 'boo Americans they invaded a country they shouldn't have therefore I get to Japanese commanders had no strategic blindspots in how they fought WWII'?
Meanwhile, why should you recognise Japanese blindspots in WWII? Because you want to have some element of plausibility in your alt-history. At which point you need to explain why the Japanese started acting completely differently to how they actually undertook the war. Even your beloved Yamamoto failed to understand the nature of industrial war.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
sebster wrote: Tadashi wrote:Right...as if the ships would just sit in the same place all the time
Well, San Francisco bay isn't moving anywhere... if you want to directly engage it with light cruisers you have to go to where it is. And then you can look surprised when the air response makes your boats not float anymore.
Go look at pictures of the Atlantic fleet on D-Day. See the range of ships they had on hand to guard against German air power. And German air power had been greatly reduced by the combat in Russia, and the allies could launch air cover from bases in London, while the only possible air cover for the Japanese would come from their carriers.
What makes you think its an invasion? More like suppression bombing of the Naval Yards...and the alternate timeline would have Japan forcing through accelerated weapons development and industrialization.
35352
Post by: prime12357
Japan was not a technologically capable as the United States, had a smaller population, and thus had fewer soldiers and factory workers, did not have abundant supplies of raw materials, was embroiled in a costly land war in China and had to devote tremendous amounts of resources to fortify some strategically important but ultimately rather useless lumps of rock in the middle of the Pacific. Though the Japanese had a larger standing army, the US could call upon a much larger production base, so could (and did) drown them in planes, boats and ordinance. Tadashi wrote:...and accelerating technological development/industrialization...
..and the alternate timeline would have Japan forcing through accelerated weapons development and industrialization.
You speak of Yamamoto taking control and focussing on technological improvements, but what would he focus research upon?
51396
Post by: Tadashi
prime12357 wrote: ..and the alternate timeline would have Japan forcing through accelerated weapons development and industrialization.
You speak of Yamamoto taking control and focussing on technological improvements, but what would he focus research upon?
Weapons development, pure and simple. If Nazi Germany was there, he could acquire it from them...
14329
Post by: Alraz_ka
Where are you getting that Yamamoto didn't understand the nature of industrial war? He understood just fine that the US could simply outproduce and defeat Japan in a war of attrition.
Japan had no chance at winning the Pacific War against America though, even if they had better COs. Had they stuck to taking over Far East Asia and built up a strong industrial base and subjects loyal to the Emperor and the greater good of Asia then they could have become a threat. They made the same mistakes the Nazis did, they conquered and did not convert.
5470
Post by: sebster
LordofHats wrote:That actually is an interesting question. I'd need to look up how Japan felt about the end of the Sino-Japanese war, and the colonial days before the second began. If the Japanese were nicer, my initial thought isn't wide support but that they wouldn't encounter much resistance.
Yeah, they probably wouldn't have gotten much value out of Chinese soldiers (for a host of reasons Chinese soldiers wouldn't really have been much of an asset to China), but they wouldn't have had so many men and resources tied down there. What does that mean in the long term? Probably more Japanese troops free to defend against the US, which probably just means more US deaths, but doesn't really change anything. Could it mean the IJA had enough capability that the US couldn't commit so much to the European theatre, or does it just mean Europe remains priority #1, and the defeat of Japan is simply a slower operation. Well yeah. Like I said, the advantage of hindsight. In end nothing was gonna win Japan the war. Once FDR got committed it seems he was really committed to victory. Of course, the pointless seizure of Hawaii would only reinforce that outcome.
Definitely. And pointing out this is all in hindsight is a good point. At the time a lot of this was unknown. It wasn't a conscious decision on our part its just something that happened. We laid down carriers to expand the fleet and they got finished first and went out to join the fleet before the new battleships were ready. I don't think anyone even considered that this had happened and what it meant until the 70's.
Okay, I see your point. The battles at Timor Sea and Midway being carrier battles were largely accidents of history, and it's good luck that it turns out that's a really smart way to fight. The Sherman's negative reputation is another advantage we gain from hindsight. It was a highly effective tank, even against its own weight class against Panzer IV's in Europe.
I've always been a little puzzled by the negative reputation of the Sherman. It was a decent tank, able to be produced in mass numbers. At the same time people gush over Panthers and Tigers, and fail to realise that every one of those put into the field meant scores of less sophisticated tanks that couldn't be deployed, and that their lack of operational mobility meant they weren't even capable of doing what tanks are supposed to do - exploit breakthroughs.
35352
Post by: prime12357
Development of what, though? The belief that some miracle weapon could save the cause was not exactly beneficial to the Nazi's, either.
Also, this technology would have to be developed ridiculously quickly, put into service, and then manufactured like mad. The US was on a war footing days after the Pearl Harbor attack, and was in full IJN curbstomping form six months later.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
If you want a miracle weapon - here you go: bio weapons.
5470
Post by: sebster
Tadashi wrote:Tell me...what happened to those Americans who remained loyal to the British during the American Revolution? Why the American Indians were forced from their native lands and have yet to receive just recompense for all their sufferings? Or why the Air Force Generals responsible for the fire-bombing that killed millions were never tried? Or President Truman who ordered the use of nuclear weapons for that matter. The use of chemical agents in Vietnam. Why the issue of Guantanamo Bay is avoided by the US military and politicians? As to why the War in Iraq failed to find the WMDs that Saddam was supposed to be stockpiling? And why does every time another country gets an economic advantage, the US complains about cut throat business?
Why do Latin Americans hate the US? Why do Russians and Chinese distrust them? Why do even their allies in Europe and Asia consider them with caution?
Hang on... you're trying to have a go at the US over the apparent sins, in a thread you started about dreaming how Japan might have won WW2?
Japan. WW2. And you want to talk about someone else's atrocities.
This is really weird. Automatically Appended Next Post: LordofHats wrote:If they're going to magically invade Hawaii, they'd probably end up destroying a lot of stuff. Materials would surely survive, but as has been pointed out, having examples doesn't equate to realizing strategic and tactical value of a system. The Battle of Britain showed the value of radar but it wasn't until the 1950's that it was actually proposed that radar had been vital to victory. Prior to that, most people assumed a combination of British badassness and German silliness were the only key factors. Radar as a system was something that countries developed independently for a great deal of time, and there wasn't much discourse before WWII on the technology. Everyone had it, and thought it was useful, but not until later in the war did anyone start thinking what they really had.
A lot of the concern over radar was over the ability to turn knowledge on the ground into decisions in the air. Having a bunch of machines on the ground finding out where enemy planes are seems pretty useless given pre-war understanding of command and control. I mean hell, the French didn't even like the idea of radios.
Really, the real genius of the Battle of Britain wasn't the radar network, but Operations Control making its information useful. Automatically Appended Next Post: Galdos wrote:Mkay lets trying going back on topic. No more America or Tadashi bashing today please
That is the topic. He started a thread on how Japan could have won WW2 based on an anime, and just claimed he 'likes more traditional forms of government'.
The only useful thing that can come out of this thread is if he gets mocked into being more sensible. Automatically Appended Next Post: Tadashi wrote:What makes you think its an invasion? More like suppression bombing of the Naval Yards...and the alternate timeline would have Japan forcing through accelerated weapons development and industrialization.
I didn't say it was an invasion. Read more closely. I told you what happens when light cruisers try to engage coastal defences, and then gave an immediate example of what kind of fleet capacity is needed to do anything to coastal defences.
Want another example? Go read about the Dardanelles. That was against pretty mediocre Turkish defences, with a number of battleships, and it still failed badly.
35352
Post by: prime12357
Aha! Unit 731 and some of the most heinous atrocities of the war! (sebster, the irony is yours)
The problem is, however, that the bioweapons being developed by the unit would not be effective at all against opposing fleet operations, and there is very little to suggest that the IJN could get at all close enough to the continental US in enough numbers to deliver the quantities of bioweapons necessary to damage the population. The Kaimingjie attack in late 1940 (airdropped wheat, grain and cloth infected with plague!) killed only about 100 chinese, where the attack by fleas during the battle of Changde killed some 9500, about 1500 of which were Japanese soldiers. The public health system in the US would minimize these losses.
5470
Post by: sebster
Alraz_ka wrote:Where are you getting that Yamamoto didn't understand the nature of industrial war? He understood just fine that the US could simply outproduce and defeat Japan in a war of attrition.
From the continued obsession with chasing a decisive naval engagement with the Americans, while Americans subs sunk massive numbers of almost completely unprotected merchant ships.
It's an interesting thing people focus so intensely on the sub battle in the Atlantic, and are almost entirely unaware there even was a sub battle in the Pacific. I think in the end this is because there's a story to tell in the Atlantic, the u-boats were deadly for a time, but a series of countermeasures were developed by the Allies over time and slowly the war there was won. There is no similar story in the Pacific, where the US submarines were deadly... and then kept on being deadly while the IJN basically ignored the problem.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Not if the delivery system was designed to avoid detection until too late...by then an epidemic of unusually virulent flu erupts across the West Coast ultimately reaching Spanish Flu Epidemic levels. With the Soviets marching down Western Europe in the absence of Nazi Germany to deter them, choose, mortals, choose and perish (yes, from Ghostbusters ):
1) Concentrate on Japan and let the USSR win in Europe.
2) Accept Japanese victory in the Pacific and work with us and the Europeans to stop them commies!
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
prime12357 wrote:Aha! Unit 731 and some of the most heinous atrocities of the war! (sebster, the irony is yours)
Just looked this up. Fething disgusting. Gotta wonder what the frak is up with fascists and vivisections...
Like Horkheimer said, the 20th century will have seen the Death of Reason.
35352
Post by: prime12357
Yeah, some really horrible stuff all around. While most people think of Mengele and the Nazi's, it was the Japanese who were really up to no good in the twisted "science" division. Of course, the atrocities of WWII is another horribly depressinghorribly depressing thread...
221
Post by: Frazzled
Sounds like the Imperium of Man actually. 
51396
Post by: Tadashi
There's nothing wrong with the Imperium...Inquisition paranoia and Ecclesiarchal bs aside.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
To me alternate history is fun but should never be presented as being possible unless actually plausible. Most alternate reality fiction isn't plausible in the slightest, and should never be presented as such.
What if Japan never invaded China...
Actually an interesting possibility. Would again though need to look more into the outcome of the Boxer Rebellion and the first Sino-Japanese war. Manchuria was already occupied by Japan in 1937. At that point, conflict might have been inevitable, but going further back it might have been avoidable.
but since nothing stood in his way in the West, Stalin invades Western Europe and China.
Stalin didn't want to invade either of those places. What would prompt him to want to? The only reason the East Bloc was even created was to counter NATO and a European/American alliance (very prudent that he saw that coming btw) and the only reason he invaded Poland was because he wanted to attack Hitler before Hitler attacked him.
Yamamoto gets the backing he needs to launch a coup to replace the over-eager and suicidal Generals who want to fight the Soviets, but is forced to concede his support for a Pacific campaign to give Japan offshore (even Korea is abandoned) territory and resources for a war against the USSR, while the Chinese and Koreans are sacrificed to buy time for Japan to expand and advance its technology.
Barring that Yamamoto was never going to get that kind of support from the IJ political system, I do think things would have turned out much better for Japan had they taken some patience, secured China, and took their time. That said, I'm unsure Japan could take China. China was their version of Vietnam, the war that just wouldn't end. They'd been in it for 5 years by the time Pearl Harbor happened. With the US and Britain backing China, I'm unsure if they could have really 'won' as much as just never lost.
What does that mean in the long term? Probably more Japanese troops free to defend against the US, which probably just means more US deaths, but doesn't really change anything. Could it mean the IJA had enough capability that the US couldn't commit so much to the European theatre, or does it just mean Europe remains priority #1, and the defeat of Japan is simply a slower operation.
Yeah. I think all it would achieve is to prolong the war (I should see if I can find how much of the IJA was committed to China cause I don't know off the top of my head). Like most of Asia at this time, its not that there are no resources, its just that what China had wasn't really accessible. The infrastructure wasn't there. It would take years for Japan to really tap into the resources by which time I think they'd have already passed the breaking point in a war against the allies.
[I've always been a little puzzled by the negative reputation of the Sherman. It was a decent tank, able to be produced in mass numbers.
It boils down a bit to people trying to figure out why their sons were dying. There was a study on the myth of the Sherman being a 'bad tank' among others a few years ago (a historical-psychological exercise if you will) and what the study found was that crews were very positive of the Sherman. But then you go to families and their friends and gradually you see this myth get built up the further you get from actual troops that the Sherman was a horrible tank and that it was getting men killed because it was so bad. This same thing actually happened to the M1 rifle at the time, where people at home though the 'ping' of the cartridge being ejected was getting soldiers killed (even if you think about it that myth makes no logical sense).
The reality is the Sherman had only two main problems. 1 the gun wasn't strong enough for 1944 German armor. This was rectified heavily by the facts Germany didn't have that much armor left. They only had about 2000 tanks in western Europe in 1944. And most of those tanks weren't really tanks (EDIT: Oh, and to top it off when D-Day started, we struck gold and a flight of B-17's bombed the of the Panzer Lehr, wiping out over half their vehicles). They were StuG's and self-propelled guns. There were only a little over 1000 Tigers total in 1944 and most of them in the East. And 2, the Sherman liked to catch fire. Nick the engine and the Sherman goes up like a roman candle and burns the crew alive. This was a major problem that wasn't fixed in until, I think, late 1943? But the myths about the negative aspects of the Sherman weren't really there until late 1944.
The Sherman was a wonderful tank overall however. Its reputation has mostly been sullied by popular culture from the 1950's and some early histories that overly relied on the internal histories of the Ordnance Department. There's a book that actually covers this subject from the 1970's called Faint Praise: American Tanks and Tank Destroyers During World War II by Charles Baily. It's mostly about the development of the Pershing, but it does cover the Sherman's negative reputation as well.
At the same time people gush over Panthers and Tigers, and fail to realise that every one of those put into the field meant scores of less sophisticated tanks that couldn't be deployed, and that their lack of operational mobility meant they weren't even capable of doing what tanks are supposed to do - exploit breakthroughs.
Yeah. It's actually baffling when you think about it. A state with no where near enough oil, designs a gas guzzler as its next generation of armored vehicle?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Sherman's flaws were:
*Caught fire easily. This was rectified over time with armor appliques on critical areas and other items such as wet storage of ammo. Frankly, although a good idea initially, a better diesel engine should have been developed and installed as soon as feasible once this was discovered.
*Armor/gun too weak. Its not correct actually. When the Sherman first came out it at was equal or superior to anything it was up against. However in time the Germans developed longer range firepower in the PZIV, and obviously much superior armor and firepower in the PZV and PZVI. It was the same problem the Russians had with the T34. Unlike the British, and Russians however, the Americans delayed upgunning the Sherman line until later in the war. Once they did so, although still not equal to the best German heavies, they had a fighting chance at shorter ranges and were very equal to their true STg and PZIV counterparts.
Gamers and historians get stuck on the strength of the Panther/Tigers, but forget the logistical nightmare behind maintaining them - typical German overengineering. While horrible to contemplate facing one on the Western Front, they were a rarity (unlike in commonly seeing them in wargames). Franky, forget the King Tigers. The real threat was the Thunderbolt fluttering about over Hans’ head, or the FOB radioing in artillery, something far more advanced than the German system.
Had the war extended any further than it did, both Britain and the US would have fielded heavy tanks in numbers (tanks who became the base for a generation of future tanks in both countries) and the Germans would have faced lots of upgunned M4s.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
Ok, three pages of posts over night, so I'm not going to hit you all with a wall of text to refute each and every point.
The Allies and direct attacks on ports : for being a bad idea, they did it a lot.
Carrier armored flight decks: Wrong, that's slightly more than half the number of Casablanca class carriers alone. It's actually a small minority of carriers produced even after the war started.
The M4: the original M4 was, in fact, a gak tank. The improved variants, however, were much superior. The first Sherman that was comparable to the Pz 4 was the M4A3E2 (Jumbo), followed the M4A2E8 (Easy 8). Do not confuse 'technologically superior' with 'shooting a deer an Anti Material Rifle'. Light tanks at the time were not meant to engage other tanks, they were designed to give recon a little extra punch. By nature, they couldn't carry heavy armor, and this applies to both US and Japanese light tanks. Or was the US 'technologically inferior' for producing thousands and thousands of M3s and M5s?
US readiness Dec 7 1941 = US Readiness, Jun 6th, 1944: WTF? Yes, guys, FDR would have gotten in his magic time machine and brought the US military from the future back in time with him. But why go to that, why not just go far enough forward to bring back US made tanks from the year 2040 with graviton beam cannons? You do realize that military build up took years to put together and, again, came within one order of failing spectacularly. Thank God, Hitler was insane.
US aircraft stopping shore bombardments: WHAT aircraft? At that time, we had 11 pursuit squadrons FOR THE ENTIRE WEST COAST. RAF fighter command had 68 (IIRC) squadrons for a much smaller area and still had a hard time of it. While, yes, US land based planes outnumbered carrier based planes, the problem is concentration of force. The Japanese could have brought all their forces against a target, while the US could only bring a fraction of it's total air power against the Japanese fleet.
You also have to consider how much damage this would do to the US ability to produce ships and planes, in the short term. The US won because of hundreds of slipways up and down the west coast that were safe from attack. Never mind that the population of California gak themselves when a single submarine fired on a refinery. Imagine the panic and logistical issues that would happen if real attacks took place.
30287
Post by: Bromsy
Seeing as we had broken Japanese naval codes by may of '42 I think it wouldn't have been that hard for us to concentrate our forces. It worked at Midway, pretty sure it would have worked off the coast.
That the Allies thoroughly kicked the crap out of the Axis when it came to cryptography and signals intelligence hasn't really been brought up in this thread, but it was a major factor in the war.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
At that time, we had 11 pursuit squadrons FOR THE ENTIRE WEST COAST.
... Hey Ford. How fast can you build a plane?
"Give me a few weeks and I'll build you a couple hundred."
The amount of time it would take to secure Hawaii would be at least a month. Taking it would be fast and quick but establishing it as a suitable site would take weeks. Japan wouldn't ready to just jump on over to the west coast. And in that time, we'd be building new planes and pushing out pilots. An initial raid, maybe two (depends on time) would work well, but then we'd just swarm them down with aircraft.
Oh and of course, dem oil supplies. Pearl Harbor's "2 year" oil stash wasn't designed to keep a fleet operating 2000 miles from port. It was designed to give them enough fuel to maintain regular operations within a few dozen miles of Pearl. Maintaining a war stance would need regular shipments which was infeasible for Japan.
The US won because of hundreds of slipways up and down the west coast that were safe from attack.
Because Japan attacking the west coast is an absurd idea, even in alternate reality, assuming we're talking about within the real of prossibility.
You do realize that military build up took years to put together and, again
You do realize the US military was invading Africa within 6 months of Pearl, right? We built up at an insanely fast rate (helped that factories were already going) and island hoping doesn't take the same force as invading mainland Europe.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Frazzled wrote:Sherman's flaws were:
*Caught fire easily. This was rectified over time with armor appliques on critical areas and other items such as wet storage of ammo. Frankly, although a good idea initially, a better diesel engine should have been developed and installed as soon as feasible once this was discovered.
*Armor/gun too weak. Its not correct actually. When the Sherman first came out it at was equal or superior to anything it was up against. However in time the Germans developed longer range firepower in the PZIV, and obviously much superior armor and firepower in the PZV and PZVI. It was the same problem the Russians had with the T34. Unlike the British, and Russians however, the Americans delayed upgunning the Sherman line until later in the war. Once they did so, although still not equal to the best German heavies, they had a fighting chance at shorter ranges and were very equal to their true STg and PZIV counterparts.
Gamers and historians get stuck on the strength of the Panther/Tigers, but forget the logistical nightmare behind maintaining them - typical German overengineering. While horrible to contemplate facing one on the Western Front, they were a rarity (unlike in commonly seeing them in wargames). Franky, forget the King Tigers. The real threat was the Thunderbolt fluttering about over Hans’ head, or the FOB radioing in artillery, something far more advanced than the German system.
Had the war extended any further than it did, both Britain and the US would have fielded heavy tanks in numbers (tanks who became the base for a generation of future tanks in both countries) and the Germans would have faced lots of upgunned M4s.
Yeah, Panthers and Tigers were superior only on an individual basis. And then only in weapons and armor development. As far as internal systems were concerned, especially later in the war, they were quite shoddy.
One major flaw was they were not easily repairable in the field. Not all the parts were accessable without actually taking it into a shop and taking the entire tank apart.
Shermans could be repaired in the field by their crew most of the time. And if a part needed replacing they could get a replacement part and put it in themselves.
Not to mention, later in the war, the Shermans had started carrying guns that could penetrate Panther and Tiger armor even from the front.
If the Germans had focused on producing more Panzer IVs they would have had the numbers to counter the Allied numbers.
221
Post by: Frazzled
No no BaronIveagh has spoken. Japan was a shoe in for maximum pwonage, if only they had thought of invading Hawaii. Despite their months of planning, preparation, strategizing, and actual playtesting of scenarios, somehow this was overlooked by the Japanese. Curses oh cruel misfortune, their fair empire dead, destroyed by the lack of whispered dreams in the night. Automatically Appended Next Post: sebster wrote: Grey Templar wrote:If we had invaded, the entire Island would likely have been annhilated. The entire populace was ready to fight, down to the last women and child.
That's a matter for debate. It was certainly believed to be true at the time, but then back then we didn't have much of a problem putting alien mindsets onto Asian people.
It probably would have ended up a really bloody, ugly invasion with loads of casualties on both sides, more or less like the Russian capture of Berlin. But most civilians would have probably fled the fighting, and looked first to protect their families, same as everywhere else in the world.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote:Ugh. You know one of the last act of the military if Japan were going to take over Hawaii is to destroy everything of military value. Drydock, fuel storage, military supplies, and basically everything of military use.
Maybe. Panic sets in, especially when people aren't pschologically ready for the invasion, or properly trained in the event it does. There's no shortage of stories of bridges, water supplies and munitions being captured when it simply should not have happened.
I think it's unlikely the Japanese could have captured meaningful levels of supplies from Pearl Harbour, but you can't just decide it never would have happened.
The mindset was based on attacks from civilians on US troops in Okinawa, and propaganda from the Japanese themselves. They didn't know about the thousands of suicide planes the Japanese had secretly stored. If anything actual casualty rates for US forces would have been substantially higher.
34390
Post by: whembly
Whomever has the resources and/or lack of humanity usually win these wars.
The Japanese and US were certainly brutal... but, the Japanese couldn't hope to keep up with the US' resources capacity.
There is no clean wars.
There was a famous book (for life of me, I can't remember) that a tactician was brilliant in warfare... but had no empathy what so ever. HE's your ideal General.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Tadashi wrote: Kovnik Obama wrote: Lol. That's not even in their country... A democracy can be as much a dick as anyone else in a war. Like I've said many time, you'd gain a lot by picking up a book about politics.
They may not be a dictatorship...but they sure as hell act like one.
No if we acted like dictators there would be no Japanese. You would all have died.
7150
Post by: helgrenze
The Japanese depended a lot on their high altitude observer planes to know where their targets were.
In one instance, they had reports of one of the American carriers, (Enterprise I think) being sighted in widely different locations. This was partly because they based the estimated maximum speed on their own carriers. The ship in question would run at 2/3 speed during the day then ran at max speed at night at an angle to their actual course. Result: The IJN refused to believe reports without verification, thus deploying more planes on recon which pulled fuel from the fighters.
Intersting point though, If they had waited one day, they would have caught 2 of the American carriers at Pearl, Enterprise and Hornet. Enterprise was supposed to port on Dec7 and Hornet on the 8th. Fighters from Enterprise actually took part in the defense of the Harbor.
34390
Post by: whembly
Frazzled wrote:No no BaronIveagh has spoken. Japan was a shoe in for maximum pwonage, if only they had thought of invading Hawaii. Despite their months of planning, preparation, strategizing, and actual playtesting of scenarios, somehow this was overlooked by the Japanese. Curses oh cruel misfortune, their fair empire dead, destroyed by the lack of whispered dreams in the night.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote: Grey Templar wrote:If we had invaded, the entire Island would likely have been annhilated. The entire populace was ready to fight, down to the last women and child.
That's a matter for debate. It was certainly believed to be true at the time, but then back then we didn't have much of a problem putting alien mindsets onto Asian people.
It probably would have ended up a really bloody, ugly invasion with loads of casualties on both sides, more or less like the Russian capture of Berlin. But most civilians would have probably fled the fighting, and looked first to protect their families, same as everywhere else in the world.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote:Ugh. You know one of the last act of the military if Japan were going to take over Hawaii is to destroy everything of military value. Drydock, fuel storage, military supplies, and basically everything of military use.
Maybe. Panic sets in, especially when people aren't pschologically ready for the invasion, or properly trained in the event it does. There's no shortage of stories of bridges, water supplies and munitions being captured when it simply should not have happened.
I think it's unlikely the Japanese could have captured meaningful levels of supplies from Pearl Harbour, but you can't just decide it never would have happened.
The mindset was based on attacks from civilians on US troops in Okinawa, and propaganda from the Japanese themselves. They didn't know about the thousands of suicide planes the Japanese had secretly stored. If anything actual casualty rates for US forces would have been substantially higher.
Based on numerous WW2 diaries... the Marines knew that it would be a bloodbath had they invaded.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Okinawa was a big clue on what would happen if they invaded Japan
221
Post by: Frazzled
Tadashi wrote: prime12357 wrote:
Japan might have been able to delay the inevitable, but defeat was really the only outcome. Like a pugnacious twelve-year old picking a fight with a MMA fighter, we all know who's going to win...
How about a smart twelve-year old who plays to his strengths?
A better analogy would be a 12 year old with a knife vs. a Longhorn bull. You may bloody the bull a little bit, but once he gets going you're a smear on the ground.
54773
Post by: Galdos
BaronIveagh wrote:
Carrier armored flight decks: Wrong, that's slightly more than half the number of Casablanca class carriers alone. It's actually a small minority of carriers produced even after the war started.
Actually thats wrong. Casablanca is an escort carrier. The Yorktown class was the last class to have unarmored flight decks. Essex were the first to armor the deck and NONE of the Essex classes were lost in the war (of the 24 of them made) with only 2 baddly damaged (Bunker Hill and Franklin)
The M4: the original M4 was, in fact, a gak tank. The improved variants, however, were much superior. The first Sherman that was comparable to the Pz 4 was the M4A3E2 (Jumbo), followed the M4A2E8 (Easy 8). Do not confuse 'technologically superior' with 'shooting a deer an Anti Material Rifle'. Light tanks at the time were not meant to engage other tanks, they were designed to give recon a little extra punch. By nature, they couldn't carry heavy armor, and this applies to both US and Japanese light tanks. Or was the US 'technologically inferior' for producing thousands and thousands of M3s and M5s?
The first Sherman was the equivlent of the Panzer 4. With both being armored with a 75mm gun and the armor being roughly the same (Panzer 4 had a LITTLE bit more, Sherman was slopped) with similar top speeds. The difference between the two was Sherman blew up easily from ammo issues.
Roughly around Italy the Panzer 4 started getting armed with 76mm while the Shermans starting getting wet ammo racks. This fixed the explosive problem of the Sherman and gave the Panzer 4 a bit of range on them.
By Normandy, many of the Shermans were equped with 76mm and meaning they could pen Panzer 4s and roughly the same range and could now pen Tigers.
Jumbos, were another beast all together, Jumbos were the American Heavy tank in a way. They grew tired of having Tigers feth gak up, and put so much armor on a Shermans front that when equpied with a 76mm, they could actually pen the Tiger the same range a Tiger could pen a Jumbo. The E8 was leagues superior to the Panzer IV and was a damn fine tank but they didnt come to france a bit after Normandy.
Okay let me get this straight. Japan, does not build medium tanks and instead focuses on light tanks. Their main battle tank this means is a light tank. The Americans make Stuarts that are roughly equal to the Jap tanks. To fix this problem America says feth it and starts to deploy medium tanks which are completely superior to Lights. So from Guadacanal to Okinawa, Japan soldiers have to deal with American armor with limited infantry Anti-tank weapons or using their light tanks that history showed performed SOOOO HORRIBLY against the American tanks. This means that America has an advantage in technology in dealing with armor units. I dont understand why you think that because Japan doesnt use medium tanks and their light tanks can not defeat Shermans, that means that Japan is... I dont know level footing when comparing armor?
US readiness Dec 7 1941 = US Readiness, Jun 6th, 1944: WTF? Yes, guys, FDR would have gotten in his magic time machine and brought the US military from the future back in time with him. But why go to that, why not just go far enough forward to bring back US made tanks from the year 2040 with graviton beam cannons? You do realize that military build up took years to put together and, again, came within one order of failing spectacularly. Thank God, Hitler was insane.
I have no idea what this statement is refering to. I simply missed the first part of the post
US aircraft stopping shore bombardments: WHAT aircraft? At that time, we had 11 pursuit squadrons FOR THE ENTIRE WEST COAST. RAF fighter command had 68 (IIRC) squadrons for a much smaller area and still had a hard time of it. While, yes, US land based planes outnumbered carrier based planes, the problem is concentration of force. The Japanese could have brought all their forces against a target, while the US could only bring a fraction of it's total air power against the Japanese fleet.
Okay the physical act of invading the USA is actually possible, the US didnt have an Atlantic wall to defend them. In fact, a smart commander would let the Japs come onsure, move a bit inland and than hit them hard with Carpet Bombers (a tactic that was very effective in Operation Cobra) to soften them up, land based aircraft to tangle with the Japs who would be outnumbered because they are limited to the aircraft craft carriers, the US can move planes once they know where the Japs landed, and a good armored offensive which Japan, having only light tanks, would have gotten destroyed in. Actually invading America would play to every single one of the American strengths.
Also worth remember, the major manufactoring plants are in the Eastern US, which means America would be cranking war material out
21313
Post by: Vulcan
Tadashi wrote: LordofHats wrote: Tadashi wrote:Hence the professionals saying it as not impossible, but very difficult to achieve in reality
I'd question the credentials of anyone simultaneously claiming these to be possible in any reality and to be 'professional.'
They also presented a different strategy: Japan stays out of the Atlantic, but still annihilates Pearl Harbor and the Panama Canal - regardless of Australia and the West Coast, a long-distance war in such a situation (especially with Japan entrenched across the West Pacific) would have been hopeless.
Guadalcanal. Tarawa. The Solomans. New Gunea. The Carolines. The Phillipines. The Marianas. Iwo Jima. Okinawa. All places where the entrenched Japanese military got removed by the combined might of the United States Armed Forces.
Adding Oahu to the list (not much need to retake the others immediately, Pearl is by far and away the best anchorage there and the garrisons on the other islands wither and fall into American hands once isolated) isn't really that much of an additional stretch for the forces that kicked Japan clear across the Pacific... and was building up to do the same to the Japanese mainland.
Besides, if I'm not mistaken, the number of American troops on Oahu (much less the entire archepelgo) would have outnumbered the amount of troops Japan could possibly have transported in an amphibious capacity at the time. And resources spend building MORE transport before the war were NOT spend on surface combatants and (more importantly) aircraft carriers. It's just barely possibly they could have taken Oahu... but they would have been bleed so badly there's no way they could have held off the inevitable counterattack.
Destroying the Panama Canal wouldn't have helped the Japanese all that much. It would have meant longer transit time for ships built on the east coast... and that's about it. There are many decent ports on the west coast, and a good train system to move supplies built in the east to the west coast. Besides, going after the Panama Canal would have meant even more attritional losses inflicted on the Imperial Navy... losses they could not afford. And bomb Los Alamos? Why? As far as the Japanese knew at the time (assuming they'd ever heard of the place in the first place!) it's just a tiny desert town in the middle of nowhere, nearly a thousand miles from the sea and well out of range of a carrier strike. Far better to try bombing the fleet base at San Diego, at least that has the potential to harm the U.S!
Besides, the nukes probably saved Japanese culture from being wiped out. If there hadn't been a surrender, the U.S. would have invaded. American losses would have been heavy. Given the way Tojo was psyching up the Japanese people to fight to the death, Japanese losses would have been... pretty near total, and a tragic loss to the world.
I'll grant you that one-on-one the Japanese soldier was as good as any American soldier. But when an army five times the size of yours arrives offshore, and has absolute naval supremecy (because we have the resources to wage attritional war on your navy and you don't), you've got to be five times as good just to hold your own. And I'm not willing to grant the WWII Japanese soldier being that good... with his bolt-action rifle vs. the M-1 Garand.
Not to mention that by '43/'44 American aircraft had far supassed the performance of the Zero... and outnumbered them over 5-to-1 again. Japan simply did not have the resources to outbuild America... and was doomed to loose. Yamamoto - generally acknowledged by Americans as the best stragegist Japan had in the war - understood this before the war... and it's a damn shame no one listened to him. It would have saved a large number of lives.
Anime is (generally speaking) fiction... this one more than most.
(Sorry. The Pacific War is one of my personal special interests and I've researched it pretty heavily...  ) Automatically Appended Next Post: Tadashi wrote:Not if the delivery system was designed to avoid detection until too late...by then an epidemic of unusually virulent flu erupts across the West Coast ultimately reaching Spanish Flu Epidemic levels. With the Soviets marching down Western Europe in the absence of Nazi Germany to deter them, choose, mortals, choose and perish (yes, from Ghostbusters ):
1) Concentrate on Japan and let the USSR win in Europe.
2) Accept Japanese victory in the Pacific and work with us and the Europeans to stop them commies!
Okay, I'll bite. What delivery system, what infectious agent, and what makes you think Japan at the time could handle a weaponized agent of that lethality without it getting loose in Japan and doing far worse there? I don't think any country at the time had enough understanding of epdiemiology to make it work - or the technology to make the level of sterile work environment to make it safe.
221
Post by: Frazzled
sebster wrote:Alraz_ka wrote:Where are you getting that Yamamoto didn't understand the nature of industrial war? He understood just fine that the US could simply outproduce and defeat Japan in a war of attrition.
From the continued obsession with chasing a decisive naval engagement with the Americans, while Americans subs sunk massive numbers of almost completely unprotected merchant ships.
It's an interesting thing people focus so intensely on the sub battle in the Atlantic, and are almost entirely unaware there even was a sub battle in the Pacific. I think in the end this is because there's a story to tell in the Atlantic, the u-boats were deadly for a time, but a series of countermeasures were developed by the Allies over time and slowly the war there was won. There is no similar story in the Pacific, where the US submarines were deadly... and then kept on being deadly while the IJN basically ignored the problem.
Indeed. The Americans did what the German Uboats couldn't do-starve a nation of vital supplies.
The United States Submarine Service in WW II saw action in both the Atlantic, in a very limited way, and in the Pacific in a major way. The Submarine Service accounted for about 55% of all Japanese tonnage sunk in the war. This was done by a branch of the Navy that accounted for about 1.6% of the Navy's wartime complement.
The Japanese lost 1,178 Merchant Ships sunk for a tonnage total of 5,053,491 tons. The Naval losses were 214 ships and submarines totaling 577,626 tons. A staggering five million, six hundred thirty one thousand, one hundred seventeen tons, (5,631,117 tons), 1,392 ships.
Japan ended the war with a bare 12% of her merchant fleet intact but not fuel at hand to run more than a few of them.
Action in the Atlantic showed far fewer successes, mainly due to poor torpedo performance. By May of 1943 US submarine involvement had almost ceased in the Atlantic except for training and sea trials of new subs. US submarine losses in the Atlantic were few and may have been the result of an aggressive anti-submarine program by US and allied powers.
The U.S. Navy lost 52 submarines sunk and 4023 men of the submarine service died while on boats. These boats and crews left port and never returned. Their final resting place, and the circumstances surrounding their fate is, for the most part, unknown. We, in the Submarine Service, refer to these boats and men as being on Eternal Patrol
http://pigboats.com/ww2/ww2sinkings.html
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
LordofHats wrote:
... Hey Ford. How fast can you build a plane?
"Give me a few weeks and I'll build you a couple hundred."
The amount of time it would take to secure Hawaii would be at least a month. Taking it would be fast and quick but establishing it as a suitable site would take weeks. Japan wouldn't ready to just jump on over to the west coast. And in that time, we'd be building new planes and pushing out pilots. An initial raid, maybe two (depends on time) would work well, but then we'd just swarm them down with aircraft.
Oh and of course, dem oil supplies. Pearl Harbor's "2 year" oil stash wasn't designed to keep a fleet operating 2000 miles from port. It was designed to give them enough fuel to maintain regular operations within a few dozen miles of Pearl. Maintaining a war stance would need regular shipments which was infeasible for Japan.
8 billion gallons. And no, it wasn't. Remember that the US Navy was not staying 'within a few dozen miles of Pearl'. The existing stores would have sufficed if that was their plan. The Navy's operations at that time extended all the way to the Philippines.
And, again, it took months to convert those factories, not weeks. In all of 1942, the US managed to produce 24k combat aircraft of all types. At the same time, Japan manged to produce approx 20k of all types. It wasn't until 43 that US production managed to seriously outpace everyone elses.
LordofHats wrote:
Because Japan attacking the west coast is an absurd idea, even in alternate reality, assuming we're talking about within the real of prossibility.
Napoleon winning at Austerlitz was thought absurd, an impossibility. As the man himself later observed 'Impossible is a word found only in the dictionary of fools'.
LordofHats wrote:
You do realize the US military was invading Africa within 6 months of Pearl, right? We built up at an insanely fast rate (helped that factories were already going) and island hoping doesn't take the same force as invading mainland Europe.
Operation Torch was November of 1942. That's not 'six months later'. And major action didn't happen until Jan-Feb of 43. That's one of the things that drives me nuts on this board.
Guadalcanal was called 'Operation Shoestring' by the Marines for a REASON. They started off without even close to enough supplies. Further, if the Japanese had taken Pearl, the US would have gone from three carrier task forces at Guadalcanal to one, maybe.
On the Sherman's 75 = the Pz 4's 75:
7.5 cm StuK 40 L48 loaded with Pzgr.Ptr.39 (as opposed to a Pzgr. 40, which throws the M3 out the window) Pen at 500 yards and a angle of 30 degrees from vert, 96mm.
US M3 firing an M72 AP shell at a flat on testing plate (one at 90 degrees rather then having a 30 degree slope) pen at 500 yards, 76mm
So, even giving the M3 an advantage, it still does not perform at the same standard. Further, the Sherman's frontal armor, at 76mm was easily penetrated by the Pziv, while the Pz IV's 80mm frontal armor was not easily penetrated by the Sherman.
Granted, soft armor, side skirting, angle of shot and so on are all factors, but the Pz VI is the clear winner.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Vulcan wrote:
Besides, if I'm not mistaken, the number of American troops on Oahu (much less the entire archepelgo) would have outnumbered the amount of troops Japan could possibly have transported in an amphibious capacity at the time. And resources spend building MORE transport before the war were NOT spend on surface combatants and (more importantly) aircraft carriers. It's just barely possibly they could have taken Oahu... but they would have been bleed so badly there's no way they could have held off the inevitable counterattack.
Incorrect. As I pointed out earlier, the 14th Army not only grotesquely outnumber the defenders in Hawaii grand total, but were already mounted in with enough amphibious transport to move them in preparation for Luzon
Vulcan wrote:
Destroying the Panama Canal wouldn't have helped the Japanese all that much. It would have meant longer transit time for ships built on the east coast... and that's about it. There are many decent ports on the west coast, and a good train system to move supplies built in the east to the west coast. Besides, going after the Panama Canal would have meant even more attritional losses inflicted on the Imperial Navy... losses they could not afford. *snip* since I agree with the Los Alamos bit, but have no idea who was saying that, as it's in New Mexico. And the Nuclear program was not even there at the time, it was in White Oaks *snip* Far better to try bombing the fleet base at San Diego, at least that has the potential to harm the U.S!
You are not very familiar with conditions along the Cape of Good Hope or Cape Horn, are you? Picture a hurricane. Now have it go on for weeks. There wasn't just one reason that tehy built the Canal. Ships are to this day lost trying to 'round the horn'. Not sure why you think that there would be much by way of losses hitting the Panama Canal. It was very, very weakly defended in the time frame we're looking at here.
Vulcan wrote:
(Sorry. The Pacific War is one of my personal special interests and I've researched it pretty heavily... )
Obviously not heavy enough.
Vulcan wrote:
Okay, I'll bite. What delivery system, what infectious agent, and what makes you think Japan at the time could handle a weaponized agent of that lethality without it getting loose in Japan and doing far worse there? I don't think any country at the time had enough understanding of epdiemiology to make it work - or the technology to make the level of sterile work environment to make it safe.
Because the Japanese were the source of just about everything we know about weaponized germs. One of their more ingenious designs was a bomb composed of a minimum amount of explosive, and porcelain containers filled with anthrax spores. When the bomb detonates the spores are spread over a wide area. Further, anyone struck by shrapnel is almost immediately infected with anthrax.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Napoleon winning at Austerlitz was thought absurd, an impossibility. As the man himself later observed 'Impossible is a word found only in the dictionary of fools'.
Have a hard time comprehending the concept of hindsight? People in their own time don't usually realize what has happened and what could or might happen. We have the advantage of actually having a much larger amount of information than they did.
And, again, it took months to convert those factories, not weeks.
Most of those factories already existed (it was methodology and streamlining that sped things up). And Japan only had 10 carriers (4 of consequence), needed to keep at least 4 in the west Pacific, leaving only six free to do other things. Their largest carriers only carried roughly 70 plans. That's 280, a max of 700 (assuming 70 for all 10, which isn't true but for the sake of numbers) that could ever go against the US coast line.
Obviously not heavy enough.
Says they guy who assumes oil lasts forever and can take you anywhere you want to go? 8 billion may seem like a huge number, but a battleship alone will go through hundreds a day just steaming along. An entire fleet could go through a two or three million gallons in a week just going along. We're talking about ships that are getting a few dozen feet to the gallon. Large ships guzzle fuel insanely fast, especially when spending almost all their time at sea. Japan would burn up that Pearl supply in a year maintaining combat operations just in the pacific. Going all the way to the west coast let alone the panama canal and blockading it is horribly unrealistic and one of the reasons they hedged their bets on trying to produce a short war.
Once it was gone, Japan didn't have the means of replacing that supply. They barely managed to keep their own fleet running through 1943 with a reserve supply in excess of twenty-five billion gallons operating at no where near the ranges your suggesting. By 1944, Japan had exhausted its pre-war oil surplus (which they'd been building since 1922).
As I pointed out earlier, the 14th Army not only grotesquely outnumber the defenders in Hawaii grand total, but were already mounted in with enough amphibious transport to move them in preparation for Luzon
So who is going to deal with the Phillipines? EDIT: And that's not even going into feeding and supplying the invasion force for the two weeks it would take to reach Hawaii.
Also, the M3 is the Lee. Not the Sherman. Not sure if typo. Also, depending on what the source for the ballestic penetration is it could be way off. The US vastly overestimated the penetrating power of tank arms, and the Ordnance Department's figures get cited a lot, even today.
7150
Post by: helgrenze
BaronIveagh wrote:
1) Guadalcanal was called 'Operation Shoestring' by the Marines for a REASON. They started off without even close to enough supplies. Further, if the Japanese had taken Pearl, the US would have gone from three carrier task forces at Guadalcanal to one, maybe.
2) You are not very familiar with condition along the Cape of Good Hope or Cape Horn, are you? Not sure why you think that there would be much by way of losses hitting the Panama Canal. It was very, very weakly defended in the time frame we're looking at here.
3) Because the Japanese were the source of just about everything we know about weaponized germs. One of their more ingenious designs was a bomb composed of a minimum amount of explosive, and porcelain containers filled with anthrax spores. When the bomb detonates the spores are spread over a wide area. Further, anyone struck by shrapnel is almost immediately infected with anthrax.
1) Being that the IJN missed the carriers in the attack, they would have gone to the west coast. The Pacific is a huge area to search, and Japan used seaplanes to augment their search. Given my previous comment on the Enterprise being "sighted" in what the IJN thought was imposible locations based on their own ships abilities, They would have had a difficult time hunting what were, at the time, three small (less than 10 ships) fleets.
2) Plus the Yorktown was dispatched from Norfolk on Dec 16 with a much larger fleet that included several battleships. They would have likely been exiting the Panama Canal at the time of the proposed attack. Something that the Japanese plan did not allow for.
3) There is no known record of the Japanese having experimented with weaponising Anthrax. There are records that the Brits did and had a weapon ready for depolyment in Germany.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
 helgrenze wrote:
3) There is no known record of the Japanese having experimented with weaponising Anthrax. There are records that the Brits did and had a weapon ready for depolyment in Germany.
Maybe not...but your bio-weapons tech is based on ours - our scientists were granted amnesty in exchange for the bio-weapons data.
7150
Post by: helgrenze
Tadashi wrote: helgrenze wrote:
3) There is no known record of the Japanese having experimented with weaponising Anthrax. There are records that the Brits did and had a weapon ready for depolyment in Germany.
Maybe not...but your bio-weapons tech is based on ours - our scientists were granted amnesty in exchange for the bio-weapons data.
Except that everyone was experimenting with anthrax at the time, as well as other bio agents. I was wrong though, a deeper check showed that the Japanese had tested anthrax as a weapon in Manchuria in the '30s. However, the Germans had a jump on them with their version being used in 1916.
As for U.S. bio tech being based on Japanese experiments, The U.S. started work on bioweapons in 1943 well before the Japanese scientists were brought in. Even before that they had working delivery systems for Ricin.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
helgrenze wrote:
As for U.S. bio tech being based on Japanese experiments, The U.S. started work on bioweapons in 1943 well before the Japanese scientists were brought in. Even before that they had working delivery systems for Ricin.
True...but our bio-weapons data still formed a large part of your and the world's foundation for biotechnology.
TBH, I don't like bio-weapons all that much, preferring nukes instead...but we don't have nukes, and if we are to win in the alternate timeline, we must go all the way... To maximize enemy losses and minimize your own, the basic recipe for victory.
7150
Post by: helgrenze
You also have to consider that Yamamoto himself is known to have noted. In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory.
But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success.
Isoroku Yamamoto
His Timeline started with Pearl Harbor (Dec 7, '41), and barely made the 6 months ending at Midway (June 6, '42).
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
helgrenze wrote:
1) Being that the IJN missed the carriers in the attack, they would have gone to the west coast.
Enterprise was too close to Pearl to have escaped unnoticed if the Japanese had lingered in the area. Lexington would have run out even if it stripped it's escorts before it made the West Coast, as she was much deeper in the Pacific. Saratoga was in San Diego.
helgrenze wrote:
The Pacific is a huge area to search, and Japan used seaplanes to augment their search. Given my previous comment on the Enterprise being "sighted" in what the IJN thought was imposible locations based on their own ships abilities, They would have had a difficult time hunting what were, at the time, three small (less than 10 ships) fleets.
Quite aware of that. Again, though, Enterprise was fairly close, with planes having taken part in the fight with the second wave at Pearl. Wave three quite possibly would have noticed it, and if not them, certainly any ship that was coming into the littoral zone around Hawaii would have. Lexington would have most likely been scuttled, with her escorts trying to meet up with the Asiatic Fleet.
helgrenze wrote:
2) Plus the Yorktown was dispatched from Norfolk on Dec 16 with a much larger fleet that included several battleships. They would have likely been exiting the Panama Canal at the time of the proposed attack. Something that the Japanese plan did not allow for.
Norfolk to the Canal is a 10 day trip if they hustled and left the slower ships behind. it's a six hour minimum trip for each ship passing through the canal at the time. If, and I grant this is an if, the Japanese fleet, once the heaviest fighting ended, steamed toward the canal to wreck it, they most likely would have caught Yorktown, etc, against the shore, if not still in the Canal.
helgrenze wrote:
3) There is no known record of the Japanese having experimented with weaponising Anthrax.
That's because the US Army returned to Japan all seized records pertaining to unit 731 in the 1950's. However according to declassified Army documents written after the war, Unit 731 human subjects, many of whom came from the Mukden POW camp and included women and children, “were tied to stakes and protected with helmets and body armor” but “their legs and buttocks were bared and exposed to shrapnel from anthrax bombs exploded yards away.” Wounded thusly, the subjects were untreated but studied closely so as to ascertain how quickly they would die. Documents reveal that none lived longer than a week.
There's also the Congressional Record. Congress held hearings on it in 1986. As well as the Soviet Trial transcripts for the members of Unit 731 that were captured.
BTW:
In 1932 Shirō Ishii started experiments at Zhongma Fortress outside Harbin. It is estimated that by 1940, Unit 731 manufactured over five tons of anthrax for placement into bombshell casings.
54773
Post by: Galdos
The M3 was the name of the 75mm gun the Sherman was using.
The important thing to understand about the Sherman vs Panzer IV discuss is that they are BOTH being upgraded constantly.
Iin 1942 - 1944 the Sherman with a 75mm had NO PROBLEM with a Panzer IV. However in 44 the Panzer 4 was upgraded with more armor bringing it to 80mm armor. The Sherman with a 75mm found these a bigger issue. However the Shermans soon UPGRADED to a 76mm that fixed that problem (and the problem with Tigers and Panthers)
The German tanks were ultimately better than the American tanks. I am NOT saying the American tanks are better. However ultimately the Sherman was equal to a Panzer 4 with the exception of roughly a 1-3 month period in which a Panzer 4 would be upgraded before the Sherman. The last Upgrade the Panzer 4 got was the upgraded armor but by July, this was no longer a factor as the Shermans had responded and for the rest of the war the Sherman stayed equal with the Panzer 4 (not counting Jumbos and E8s which were simply better)
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Text removed.
Reds8n
27391
Post by: purplefood
Tadashi wrote: BaronIveagh wrote:
That's because the US Army returned to Japan all seized records pertaining to unit 731 in the 1950's. However according to declassified Army documents written after the war, Unit 731 human subjects, many of whom came from the Mukden POW camp and included women and children, “were tied to stakes and protected with helmets and body armor” but “their legs and buttocks were bared and exposed to shrapnel from anthrax bombs exploded yards away.” Wounded thusly, the subjects were untreated but studied closely so as to ascertain how quickly they would die. Documents reveal that none lived longer than a week.
There's also the Congressional Record. Congress held hearings on it in 1986.
Deplorable, and certainly inhuman...but science requires sacrifice.
You're the person who was angry at the US firebombing because it killed so many people and yet you're willing to accept these vile experiments carried out by people who i would scarcely consider human?
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
LordofHats wrote:
Also, the M3 is the Lee. Not the Sherman. Not sure if typo. Also, depending on what the source for the ballestic penetration is it could be way off. The US vastly overestimated the penetrating power of tank arms, and the Ordnance Department's figures get cited a lot, even today.
You'll noticed the difference in methodology in the two penetrations I site. The US used the flat 90 degree methodology at the time, the Germans used the 30 degree slant test (So, yes, the US test was used for hte US gun, the more difficult German test was used for the German gun). Further, US and British test plates were of inconsistent quality, though the US corrected this flaw later on.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
purplefood wrote: Tadashi wrote: BaronIveagh wrote:
That's because the US Army returned to Japan all seized records pertaining to unit 731 in the 1950's. However according to declassified Army documents written after the war, Unit 731 human subjects, many of whom came from the Mukden POW camp and included women and children, “were tied to stakes and protected with helmets and body armor” but “their legs and buttocks were bared and exposed to shrapnel from anthrax bombs exploded yards away.” Wounded thusly, the subjects were untreated but studied closely so as to ascertain how quickly they would die. Documents reveal that none lived longer than a week.
There's also the Congressional Record. Congress held hearings on it in 1986.
Deplorable, and certainly inhuman...but science requires sacrifice.
You're the person who was angry at the US firebombing because it killed so many people and yet you're willing to accept these vile experiments carried out by people who i would scarcely consider human?
Obviously, if it's Japanese doing the "testing" its cool.. but if its Us, then boo hoo, call the Geneva Conventions!
51396
Post by: Tadashi
purplefood wrote: Tadashi wrote: BaronIveagh wrote:
That's because the US Army returned to Japan all seized records pertaining to unit 731 in the 1950's. However according to declassified Army documents written after the war, Unit 731 human subjects, many of whom came from the Mukden POW camp and included women and children, “were tied to stakes and protected with helmets and body armor” but “their legs and buttocks were bared and exposed to shrapnel from anthrax bombs exploded yards away.” Wounded thusly, the subjects were untreated but studied closely so as to ascertain how quickly they would die. Documents reveal that none lived longer than a week.
There's also the Congressional Record. Congress held hearings on it in 1986.
Deplorable, and certainly inhuman...but science requires sacrifice.
You're the person who was angry at the US firebombing because it killed so many people and yet you're willing to accept these vile experiments carried out by people who i would scarcely consider human?
No, I'm angry because me and my people (I live in the Philippines) have been called out for everything that's happened in WWII, but your thrice-damned leaders never paid for what they did. Well, guess what? This is an alternate timeline - WE WILL WIN, and millions of Americans will die, just as millions of Japanese died. Blood for blood.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
No, I'm angry because me and my people (I live in the Philippines) have been called out for everything that's happened in WWII, but your thrice-damned leaders never paid for what they did. Well, guess what? This is an alternate timeline - WE WILL WIN, and millions of Americans will die, just as millions of Japanese died. Blood for blood.
I tried to work myself up on that...couldn't do it...not even close...not even a urge to get riled up...all I cancome up with....."THATS FETHING FUNNY!!!"
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Tadashi... Once you can come up with at least ONE sound strategy that could POSSIBLY lead to an Imperial Japanese victory, even in an alternate timeline, then you can say something as dumb as that.
Ohh, and Plot Armor is not a good enough reason for Japan Wins, US loses!!!
54773
Post by: Galdos
And I came EXTREMELY close to to jumping in and getting really pissed.
Guys, stop provoking Tadashi, Tadashi is simply stating opinions and trying to come up with a way the war could have played differently (at least in this thread, I dont know about your other threads)
Tadashi, please cut the anti American bit. A lot of good people died in that war on both sides.
Also the Philippines did win the war.... they were on the American side... The Americans did fight and die to make sure that the Philippines werent annexed after all. I understand not like the American government because they two didnt have the best history but dont hate on the servicemen
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
Galdos wrote:The M3 was the name of the 75mm gun the Sherman was using.
The important thing to understand about the Sherman vs Panzer IV discuss is that they are BOTH being upgraded constantly.
Iin 1942 - 1944 the Sherman with a 75mm had NO PROBLEM with a Panzer IV. However in 44 the Panzer 4 was upgraded with more armor bringing it to 80mm armor. The Sherman with a 75mm found these a bigger issue. However the Shermans soon UPGRADED to a 76mm that fixed that problem (and the problem with Tigers and Panthers)
43-44. The Sherman didn't encounter (very early) Pz4s until Feb '43. Shermans at the beginning of 43 had trouble with the Pz4, and LOTS of trouble with the Pz5 'Panther', due to being undergunned and the cast hulls used in the M4A1 causing spalling. Oh, and the fires.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
Galdos wrote:Also the Philippines did win the war.... they were on the American side... The Americans did fight and die to make sure that the Philippines werent annexed after all. I understand not like the American government because they two didnt have the best history but dont hate on the servicemen
Its because I'm in the Philippines that I get exposed for everything that happened in war (although this helps mask my half-blood heritage in Japan with sympathy). I don't hate you guys...I don't hate your military...I hate your thrice-damned government and the way it acts like a saint when its anything but.
27391
Post by: purplefood
Tadashi wrote: purplefood wrote: Tadashi wrote: BaronIveagh wrote:
That's because the US Army returned to Japan all seized records pertaining to unit 731 in the 1950's. However according to declassified Army documents written after the war, Unit 731 human subjects, many of whom came from the Mukden POW camp and included women and children, “were tied to stakes and protected with helmets and body armor” but “their legs and buttocks were bared and exposed to shrapnel from anthrax bombs exploded yards away.” Wounded thusly, the subjects were untreated but studied closely so as to ascertain how quickly they would die. Documents reveal that none lived longer than a week.
There's also the Congressional Record. Congress held hearings on it in 1986.
Deplorable, and certainly inhuman...but science requires sacrifice.
You're the person who was angry at the US firebombing because it killed so many people and yet you're willing to accept these vile experiments carried out by people who i would scarcely consider human?
No, I'm angry because me and my people (I live in the Philippines) have been called out for everything that's happened in WWII, but your thrice-damned leaders never paid for what they did. Well, guess what? This is an alternate timeline - WE WILL WIN, and millions of Americans will die, just as millions of Japanese died. Blood for blood.
Just wanna point out I'm British...
51396
Post by: Tadashi
*Takes a deep breath* Apologies. Got carried away and forgot about the small flag.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Some hate to bring up after 70+ years...seems a little out of place.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
Ensis Ferrae wrote:Tadashi... Once you can come up with at least ONE sound strategy that could POSSIBLY lead to an Imperial Japanese victory, even in an alternate timeline, then you can say something as dumb as that.
Are you joking? Even a sound strategy won't make up for some of the misinformation and jingoism that happen around here (on all sides).
If you want a strategy that Japan could use that would break the United States? Manipulate the value of real estate, create a bubble, and then pop it for profit, while creating a huge banking scandal that preys on US citizens worst fears about banks, and set up a run on the banks.
OR
Create a fake US raid on a Russian port, preying on Stalin's fears the US was setting him up to stab him in the back.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Don't worry, he's mistaken me for an American too, since the mods still have not fixed that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote:Some hate to bring up after 70+ years...seems a little out of place.
Talk to an Irishman about Englishmen. The US really does not have anyone they can truly hate, so most Americans don't really understand how long hate can go on. I mean REALLY go on...
51396
Post by: Tadashi
BaronIveagh wrote:
Create a fake US raid on a Russian port, preying on Stalin's fears the US was setting him up to stab him in the back.
An excellent idea...let the Soviets and Americans destroy each other, and we can just pick up the pieces later.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Yeah, we just end up selling you cheap quality products, that we made in China. America wins
51396
Post by: Tadashi
BaronIveagh wrote:
Talk to an Irishman about Englishmen. The US really does not have anyone they can truly hate, so most Americans don't really understand how long hate can go on. I mean REALLY go on...
Or talk to a Russian/Chinese/Latin American/Middle-Easterner about Americans.
54773
Post by: Galdos
BaronIveagh wrote: Galdos wrote:The M3 was the name of the 75mm gun the Sherman was using.
The important thing to understand about the Sherman vs Panzer IV discuss is that they are BOTH being upgraded constantly.
Iin 1942 - 1944 the Sherman with a 75mm had NO PROBLEM with a Panzer IV. However in 44 the Panzer 4 was upgraded with more armor bringing it to 80mm armor. The Sherman with a 75mm found these a bigger issue. However the Shermans soon UPGRADED to a 76mm that fixed that problem (and the problem with Tigers and Panthers)
43-44. The Sherman didn't encounter (very early) Pz4s until Feb '43. Shermans at the beginning of 43 had trouble with the Pz4, and LOTS of trouble with the Pz5 'Panther', due to being undergunned and the cast hulls used in the M4A1 causing spalling. Oh, and the fires.
I mentioned 42 because of Operation Torch was in that year. Thats right the first battle wasnt until 43, I simple mistake on my part.
Shermans did NOT have an issue with the earlier model Panzer IV however, at least I have NEVER encountered a source to say that as every source Ive seen says the exact opposite. The biggest problem was in June of 44 when the uprgaded armor Panzer IVs were taking on the undergunned Shermans. However by July this problem was well on its way to be fixed.
I already said the Fires stopped being an issue when steps were taken to prevent it which occured actually pretty early. Now this is for the Americans, as I typed this I realized other nations used the Sherman also, they may not have used the Wet Ammo Racks or change the engine which meant that the common fire problems were still being recorded, the Americans stopped having that issue pretty quickly
Oh ya the Panther was a far superior tank. I never said anything about that. That doesnt mean the Sherman was a bad tank because the Panther wasnt that common. Compared to the Shermans equivlents and what it was designed to do, it was a good tank, not the best but good. Panzer IV was the best but at the end of the day, I would put my money on the better crew in a heart beat
Fun fact, the Sherman had a better kill rate against Panthers. By that I mean in Panther vs Sherman battles, the Shermans had something like a 1.1 kill ratio (as in for Every 10 Shermans destroyed, 11 Panthers were killed.) This is because in the Bocage, the Shermans performed EXTREMELY well in because of how easy it was to mod the Sherman (Rhinos) and its agility while the Panther performed poorly. However Panthers DESTROYED the British because they were fighting long distances. Panther was better, dont get me wrong, just an interesting fact
Automatically Appended Next Post: Tadashi wrote: BaronIveagh wrote:
Talk to an Irishman about Englishmen. The US really does not have anyone they can truly hate, so most Americans don't really understand how long hate can go on. I mean REALLY go on...
Or talk to a Russian/Chinese/Latin American/Middle-Easterner about Americans.
We got the Russians, but thats not hate, just distrust.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Tadashi wrote: BaronIveagh wrote:
Create a fake US raid on a Russian port, preying on Stalin's fears the US was setting him up to stab him in the back.
An excellent idea...let the Soviets and Americans destroy each other, and we can just pick up the pieces later.
Ha, that is a good plan
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Yeah, the Panther's problem was that it was a long tank and couldnt move as quickly. Its superior range was also mitigated by the Bocage. And from the side the Panther's armor was no better then the Shermans.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Tadashi wrote: BaronIveagh wrote:
Talk to an Irishman about Englishmen. The US really does not have anyone they can truly hate, so most Americans don't really understand how long hate can go on. I mean REALLY go on...
Or talk to a Russian/Chinese/Latin American/Middle-Easterner about Americans.
Russians don't hate us. There is a bit of distrust but that isn't the same. Overall things aren't all that bad between us.
Chinese don't hate us. Overall things aren't all that bad between us. In fact China and the US are more like to be allies push come to shove thanks to economic ties.
Latin American by and large don't hate us, just as, by and large, we don't hate them.
Middle-East is obliviously complicated at the moment, but not everyone their hates us, and many that do hate everyone else that isn't Muslim.
The Japanese don't hate us, though again it is a long and complicated relationship.
Hell, we've been to war with the UK twice and we're best buds.
Of course there are people in these countries that may, but they are not the majority nor are they representative of the overall populous, just as groups like Westboro make up an obscenely insignificant amount of the overall US makeup, each country has their own marginalized hatemongers.
If you just read agit-prop pamphlets you'll get a pretty skewered perspective on world affairs.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
Galdos wrote:
I mentioned 42 because of Operation Torch was in that year. Thats right the first battle wasnt until 43, I simple mistake on my part.
Shermans did NOT have an issue with the earlier model Panzer IV however, at least I have NEVER encountered a source to say that as every source Ive seen says the exact opposite. The biggest problem was in June of 44 when the uprgaded armor Panzer IVs were taking on the undergunned Shermans. However by July this problem was well on its way to be fixed.
The uparmored Ausf G was produced in 42. The modification I think you mean was the Ausf H which made the glacis plate a single piece. Both gave the Sherman problems, but the G was not deployed to North Africa in significant numbers. The early model still achieved some startling kill ratios (German armor scored 34 losses to 183 kills at Kasserine Pass). One recurring problem was not so much with the tank per se as with the training the crew. US tankers were trained to close and try to hit them at close range or on the side. The problem is that the Pz4 has a much shorter turning radius.
Galdos wrote:
We got the Russians, but thats not hate, just distrust.
Russian never kidnapped your young children, tortured and brainwashed them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:
Latin American by and large don't hate us, just as, by and large, we don't hate them.
I might point out that while they don't actually hate you, many do think you're donkey-caves.
54773
Post by: Galdos
Russian never kidnapped your young children, tortured and brainwashed them.
What? I just meant America as a nation doesnt hate Russia. We kind of dislike them but thats it.
The uparmored Ausf G was produced in 42. The modification I think you mean was the Ausf H which made the glacis plate a single piece. Both gave the Sherman problems, but the G was not deployed to North Africa in significant numbers. The early model still achieved some startling kill ratios (German armor scored 34 losses to 183 kills at Kasserine Pass). One recurring problem was not so much with the tank per se as with the training the crew. US tankers were trained to close and try to hit them at close range or on the side. The problem is that the Pz4 has a much shorter turning radius.
I have to admit I do not know the names of the different Panzer Mods. I just know that the Sherman had no trouble with a version of the Panzer IV with armor in the 50s (refered to as the Panzer 4) but in Normandy Panzer IVs were upgraded with 80mm which the Shermans had issues with.
Your point about the kill ratios doesnt reflect the quality of the tank (my Panther / Sherman example, no one is going to say that the Sherman is even remotely close to the Panther after all) Kasserine Pass was awful because of literally everything. Poor US commanders, poor tactics, poor training, etc...
All I was trying to get at was that the Sherman was not a BAD tank. It was not amazing and the German tanks were as a whole better. But compared with Panzer IVs it was roughly equal, enough so that the crew was the most important thing. It was very good at what is was designed to do and performed fairly well. It however had a few key opponents that that made it known for being a bad tank unfairly. The ease of which an 88mm could destroy a Sherman and the fact that 88s were fairly common (though the Tiger was rare, and the Panther was a 7...5? problably a 76mm, I dont remember, 76 makes more sense. The AA gun was pretty damn common) causes the Sherman to get this rep of being a bad tank.
30287
Post by: Bromsy
So yeah, once again, in case it was missed - we absolutely destroyed the Axis in the field of cryptography. The best the germans did, not the japanese note - was break one of our shipping cyphers. Between the US and the UK, we broke the highest level military communications of the Germans and the Japanese. All things being equal - that gives us a huge advantage. But things weren't equal. Say the Japanese developed a fleet of awesome submarine carriers. We would know where they were and what they were doing whenever they radioed in.
241
Post by: Ahtman
BaronIveagh wrote:I might point out that while they don't actually hate you, many do think you're donkey-caves.
Most people think most other people are donkey-caves. The general trend is that Americans are seen as friendly and generous, but also arrogant and loud. At least that is what I have been told repeatedly by people from different countries. If the US could tone the attitude down a bit it would be much more liked. Still, that isn't the same as being hated. Each country has stereotypes associated with it, both good and bad, but not to many have serious hate, though those do exist.
27391
Post by: purplefood
Bromsy wrote:So yeah, once again, in case it was missed - we absolutely destroyed the Axis in the field of cryptography. The best the germans did, not the japanese note - was break one of our shipping cyphers. Between the US and the UK, we broke the highest level military communications of the Germans and the Japanese. All things being equal - that gives us a huge advantage. But things weren't equal. Say the Japanese developed a fleet of awesome submarine carriers. We would know where they were and what they were doing whenever they radioed in.
AFAIK We were also winning on the espionage front since the Abwehr were pretty much stopped from operating and when they did get stuff it was from a double agent so it was bad information. I have no knowledge concerning Japanese intelligence operations...
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Ahtman wrote: Tadashi wrote: BaronIveagh wrote:
Talk to an Irishman about Englishmen. The US really does not have anyone they can truly hate, so most Americans don't really understand how long hate can go on. I mean REALLY go on...
Or talk to a Russian/Chinese/Latin American/Middle-Easterner about Americans.
Russians don't hate us. There is a bit of distrust but that isn't the same. Overall things aren't all that bad between us.
Chinese don't hate us. Overall things aren't all that bad between us. In fact China and the US are more like to be allies push come to shove thanks to economic ties.
Latin American by and large don't hate us, just as, by and large, we don't hate them.
Middle-East is obliviously complicated at the moment, but not everyone their hates us, and many that do hate everyone else that isn't Muslim.
Not to mention often the Muslims hate each other even more then they hate westerners.
30287
Post by: Bromsy
Ahtman wrote: BaronIveagh wrote:I might point out that while they don't actually hate you, many do think you're donkey-caves.
Most people think most other people are donkey-caves. The general trend is that Americans are seen as friendly and generous, but also arrogant and loud. At least that is what I have been told repeatedly by people from different countries. If the US could tone the attitude down a bit it would be much more liked. Still, that isn't the same as being hated. Each country has stereotypes associated with it, both good and bad, but not to many have serious hate, though those do exist.
People are always gonna hate the dude on top. Since America has been winning at the world for like 60 of the last 70 years.... uh what's that meme...
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
Galdos wrote:Panther was a 7...5? problably a 76mm, I dont remember, 76 makes more sense. The AA gun was pretty damn common) causes the Sherman to get this rep of being a bad tank.
Actually the Panther was a 7.5 cm KwK 42. Early variants of the M50 Super Sherman also used this gun, as it was staggeringly superior to the M3. Things look like Fireflies.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
purplefood wrote: Bromsy wrote:So yeah, once again, in case it was missed - we absolutely destroyed the Axis in the field of cryptography. The best the germans did, not the japanese note - was break one of our shipping cyphers. Between the US and the UK, we broke the highest level military communications of the Germans and the Japanese. All things being equal - that gives us a huge advantage. But things weren't equal. Say the Japanese developed a fleet of awesome submarine carriers. We would know where they were and what they were doing whenever they radioed in.
AFAIK We were also winning on the espionage front since the Abwehr were pretty much stopped from operating and when they did get stuff it was from a double agent so it was bad information.
I have no knowledge concerning Japanese intelligence operations...
Not to mention, we didn't rely solely on cryptographic cyphers.. we also utilized various forms of spoken code (see here, Navajo Code Talkers)
Also, the British Intelligence arm taught a HUGE amount of skills and information to the fledgling OSS, so in the Intel. front, it was truly an Allied effort.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
purplefood wrote:We were also winning on the espionage front since the Abwehr were pretty much stopped from operating and when they did get stuff it was from a double agent so it was bad information.
I have no knowledge concerning Japanese intelligence operations...
Way to forget Operation Mountain where they set up a fake resistance group and got British Intelligence to drop them supplies and intel.v and Abwher were stopped more by infighting with the SS then they were by British Intelligence.
IIRC a lot of intelligence operations in Tokyo were run through the Russian embassy. The England did a lot of good decryption. The US usually just captured someone's decryption machine.
51396
Post by: Tadashi
BaronIveagh wrote:
IIRC a lot of intelligence operations in Tokyo were run through the Russian embassy. The England did a lot of good decryption. The US usually just captured someone's decryption machine.
Yes, well, if we move fast and capture Naval Intelligence HQ in Hawaii, we can capture the US ciphers...not to mention discover they've broken our codes...in which case we'll just change our codes.
54773
Post by: Galdos
Damn, my gut told me it was a 75mm
All right thanks for the correction
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
Tadashi wrote:
Yes, well, if we move fast and capture Naval Intelligence HQ in Hawaii, we can capture the US ciphers...not to mention discover they've broken our codes...in which case we'll just change our codes.
The US would have changed it's codes right away, but, yeah, the cat would have been out of the bag as far as the US and England reading Japanese codes.
7150
Post by: helgrenze
BaronIveagh wrote: helgrenze wrote:
1) Being that the IJN missed the carriers in the attack, they would have gone to the west coast.
Enterprise was too close to Pearl to have escaped unnoticed if the Japanese had lingered in the area. Lexington would have run out even if it stripped it's escorts before it made the West Coast, as she was much deeper in the Pacific. Saratoga was in San Diego.
They missed the ship and its fleet due to varying points that include direction of the attack and departure. Entreprise was arriving from the south, the attack was from the east and they departed to the northwest. They simply did not look for incoming ships in any direction.
BaronIveagh wrote: helgrenze wrote:
The Pacific is a huge area to search, and Japan used seaplanes to augment their search. Given my previous comment on the Enterprise being "sighted" in what the IJN thought was imposible locations based on their own ships abilities, They would have had a difficult time hunting what were, at the time, three small (less than 10 ships) fleets.
Quite aware of that. Again, though, Enterprise was fairly close, with planes having taken part in the fight with the second wave at Pearl. Wave three quite possibly would have noticed it, and if not them, certainly any ship that was coming into the littoral zone around Hawaii would have. Lexington would have most likely been scuttled, with her escorts trying to meet up with the Asiatic Fleet.
The Lex was enroute to Midway, The Saratoga was in San Diego, Meaning they were close enough to Pearl to help repulse any invasion. Saratoga was escorted by a troop ship loaded with Marines.
BaronIveagh wrote: helgrenze wrote:
2) Plus the Yorktown was dispatched from Norfolk on Dec 16 with a much larger fleet that included several battleships. They would have likely been exiting the Panama Canal at the time of the proposed attack. Something that the Japanese plan did not allow for.
Norfolk to the Canal is a 10 day trip if they hustled and left the slower ships behind. it's a six hour minimum trip for each ship passing through the canal at the time. If, and I grant this is an if, the Japanese fleet, once the heaviest fighting ended, steamed toward the canal to wreck it, they most likely would have caught Yorktown, etc, against the shore, if not still in the Canal.
Don't know where you got that number..... Japanese navy maybe.... Transit time from Norfolk to Colon at flank speed of the fleet was(is) @3 days with one day transit on the canal. The transit time at the same speeds from Hawaii to Balboa (pacific side of the Canal) was(is) @10 days. An invasion of Hawaii would have taken at least a week before the IJN could use the ports to refuel. Thus the US would have had 4 carrier fleets in the Pacific before the Japanese could consolidate and relaunch their fleet for an attack on the Canal or any other port.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
Tadashi wrote:Deplorable, and certainly inhuman...but science requires sacrifice....
This is fething disgusting. Honestly, if someone was here telling us that the Holocaust was justified, I'd hope we'd ban him. Science doesn't require vivisections and inoculation of deadly bacterias to children.
27391
Post by: purplefood
BaronIveagh wrote: purplefood wrote:We were also winning on the espionage front since the Abwehr were pretty much stopped from operating and when they did get stuff it was from a double agent so it was bad information.
I have no knowledge concerning Japanese intelligence operations...
Way to forget Operation Mountain where they set up a fake resistance group and got British Intelligence to drop them supplies and intel.v and Abwher were stopped more by infighting with the SS then they were by British Intelligence.
IIRC a lot of intelligence operations in Tokyo were run through the Russian embassy. The England did a lot of good decryption. The US usually just captured someone's decryption machine.
Operation Mountain?
Never heard of it but it looks nicely done.
Though Operation Midas, getting a double agent to pay for a 'network of spies' in Britain when in reality the money funded the Double Cross Committee for the entire war. Now that seems to be somewhat more sneaky...
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
helgrenze wrote:
They missed the ship and its fleet due to varying points that include direction of the attack and departure. Entreprise was arriving from the south, the attack was from the east and they departed to the northwest. They simply did not look for incoming ships in any direction.
This does... nothing to disprove my point. The Japanese had noticed carrier based aircraft turn up during the last wave (due to the pilots loudly broadcasting who they were from in an effort not to be shot down by AA), and the reasoning of one of the carrier captains who pushed for a third wave was that his pilots told him they had a pretty good idea where the carriers were.
helgrenze wrote:
The Lex was enroute to Midway, The Saratoga was in San Diego, Meaning they were close enough to Pearl to help repulse any invasion. Saratoga was escorted by a troop ship loaded with Marines.
At least 3, preferably 9 divisions of Marines? Otherwise, not too useful.
helgrenze wrote:
Don't know where you got that number..... Japanese navy maybe.... Transit time from Norfolk to Colon at flank speed of the fleet was(is) @3 days with one day transit on the canal.
Logs of the USS Yorktown when she made that same transit in 1939 (granted, she did it in a week, the USS Hornet took longer for some reason, so I averaged to two), as well as the 1935 US Navy Figures comparing transit time between Norfolk to Valparaiso going through the canal or around the Horn, and average speed the Japanese Navy managed en route to Midway.
At flank speed, maybe, but you would have to abandon a lot of your support ships. Automatically Appended Next Post: Kovnik Obama wrote:
This is fething disgusting. Honestly, if someone was here telling us that the Holocaust was justified, I'd hope we'd ban him. Science doesn't require vivisections and inoculation of deadly bacterias to children.
Yeah, it was pretty rough. Japan was hardly alone though. The US used the same excuse for some pretty horrific gak they did in Guatemala.
7150
Post by: helgrenze
BaronIveagh wrote:Don't know where you got that number..... Japanese navy maybe.... Transit time from Norfolk to Colon at flank speed of the fleet was(is) @3 days with one day transit on the canal.
Logs of the USS Yorktown when she made that same transit in 1939 (granted, she did it in a week, the USS Hornet took longer for some reason, so I averaged to two), as well as the 1935 US Navy Figures comparing transit time between Norfolk to Valparaiso going through the canal or around the Horn, and average speed the Japanese Navy managed en route to Midway.
At flank speed, maybe, but you would have to abandon a lot of your support ships.
Actually didn't mean Flank speed which still would not outrun the escort ships since the carrier was one of the slowest (@32k) and the transit time would drop to 2 days plus 1 for the canal. However, given a standard cruising speed of 20 knots the transit time is actually @3 days. With similar speeds from the Hawaii the transit time is still @10 days. Hawaii to San Diego is @7 days.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
BaronIveagh wrote:
Kovnik Obama wrote:
This is fething disgusting. Honestly, if someone was here telling us that the Holocaust was justified, I'd hope we'd ban him. Science doesn't require vivisections and inoculation of deadly bacterias to children.
Yeah, it was pretty rough. Japan was hardly alone though. The US used the same excuse for some pretty horrific gak they did in Guatemala.
Not claiming any type of moral highground, just saying that in any decent forum, someone playing the apologist for Holocaust-level atrocities should be outright banned.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Thread finished due to monumental crassness and stupidity.
|
|
