Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
It's worth noting that during the Battle off Samar, the destroyers and escorts of Taffy 3 used rain squalls and smoke to great effect while maintaining counterfire with their own radar-aimed guns... in what Drachinifel called a 'terrible abuse of the real-world cover rules...'

Yeah. Japan had mostly optical sights, very good but they rekised on optics and each ship had colour codes dyes to plot there shots etc.

All rather outdated compared to the US Navy, and its also excellent damage control teams and navel design keeping ships fighting that took insane damage.

That and near suicidal bravery. I think it was that battle a Japanese captain even saluted one ship, for the fight they put up against near impossible odds.

It was the Johnston. The destroyer ran around effectively picking a fight with everybody. It was the TBone of the Destroyer world.
Seriously, whenever Japanese ships appeared, it would go after them like an angry terrier. At one point it and the Heely (?) put a cruiser in a crossfire and knocked it out of action. Johnston got in close and traded fire with the heavies and I think Yamato herself.

One problem for the Japanese was they were engaging with armor piercing rounds. They would hit and go right through the destroyers and jeep carriers. It would punch a whole but not go boom. It was only late in the action that some started switching the HE and promptly blew the crap out of the Gambier Bay, Johnston and Heely(?).

 Frazzled wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
It's worth noting that during the Battle off Samar, the destroyers and escorts of Taffy 3 used rain squalls and smoke to great effect while maintaining counterfire with their own radar-aimed guns... in what Drachinifel called a 'terrible abuse of the real-world cover rules...'

Yeah. Japan had mostly optical sights, very good but they rekised on optics and each ship had colour codes dyes to plot there shots etc.

All rather outdated compared to the US Navy, and its also excellent damage control teams and navel design keeping ships fighting that took insane damage.

That and near suicidal bravery. I think it was that battle a Japanese captain even saluted one ship, for the fight they put up against near impossible odds.

It was the Johnston. The destroyer ran around effectively picking a fight with everybody. It was the TBone of the Destroyer world.
Seriously, whenever Japanese ships appeared, it would go after them like an angry terrier. At one point it and the Heely (?) put a cruiser in a crossfire and knocked it out of action. Johnston got in close and traded fire with the heavies and I think Yamato herself.

One problem for the Japanese was they were engaging with armor piercing rounds. They would hit and go right through the destroyers and jeep carriers. It would punch a whole but not go boom. It was only late in the action that some started switching the HE and promptly blew the crap out of the Gambier Bay, Johnston and Heely(?).

The fact a Destroyer that probbly weighed as much as the Yamatos main gun turret was picking a fight is pure. Well not sure what but that's pretty brazen. Especially when Yamato had fully enclosed turrets and could probbly barely dent her super structure. Yet alone her armour belts what would chipping the paint.

That was true of pretty much all of the Japanese ships present.

However, the Japanese were kind enough to carry large quantities of pure oxygen and high explosives in unarmored mounts on the deck of their cruisers and destroyers. These mounts were called 'torpedo launchers' and were easily set off by destroyer-grade gunfire. BOOM! and now you have a lot of blast damage and a big fire on board.

And while yes, the American destroyers had torpedoes launchers on deck as well, under the circumstances they fired their early... and theirs weren't powered by pure oxygen either.

It's worth mentioning that by this period in capital ship development, the 'all or nothing' armor scheme was in full use. Most ships would have a heavy armor belt over the machinery, weapons, and ammunition, and to a lesser extent fire control stations (and communications from them to the guns)... and just plain sheet steel everywhere else. Shooting up the bridge of a battleship was just as easy as shooting up the bridge of a destroyer. Indeed, one could theoretically significantly slow a battleship with light weapons by shooting up the bow. This would cause some flooding - increasing the weight the ship has to haul around - and cause extra drag on the hull.

I say 'theoretically' because you'd have to get pretty darn close to shoot that precisely with such light and short-ranged weapons, and in the meantime said battleship's main battery fire is getting even more accurate as you close...

 Vulcan wrote:
That was true of pretty much all of the Japanese ships present.

However, the Japanese were kind enough to carry large quantities of pure oxygen and high explosives in unarmored mounts on the deck of their cruisers and destroyers. These mounts were called 'torpedo launchers' and were easily set off by destroyer-grade gunfire. BOOM! and now you have a lot of blast damage and a big fire on board.

And while yes, the American destroyers had torpedoes launchers on deck as well, under the circumstances they fired their early... and theirs weren't powered by pure oxygen either.

It's worth mentioning that by this period in capital ship development, the 'all or nothing' armor scheme was in full use. Most ships would have a heavy armor belt over the machinery, weapons, and ammunition, and to a lesser extent fire control stations (and communications from them to the guns)... and just plain sheet steel everywhere else. Shooting up the bridge of a battleship was just as easy as shooting up the bridge of a destroyer. Indeed, one could theoretically significantly slow a battleship with light weapons by shooting up the bow. This would cause some flooding - increasing the weight the ship has to haul around - and cause extra drag on the hull.

I say 'theoretically' because you'd have to get pretty darn close to shoot that precisely with such light and short-ranged weapons, and in the meantime said battleship's main battery fire is getting even more accurate as you close...

That's kinda a weakness, however the long lance and others could easily outpace and out range anything anyone else had.

Forgot about all or nothing. However there's still alot of compartments and some of the larger battleships had minor, but some reinforcement to there upper works to withstand the fogrces there main guns generated. Well vs main armour but wrnough to protect the crews from the massive overpressure.

There was a reason some had majority of there AA and so enclosed bar sharpanal. It protected crew from the massive blasts. My grandfather was on them and the entire ship felt it when oyhe main guns where opening up.

Yes. That theory also forgets you somehow have to evade the faster firing secondary guns and rapid fire duel mode AA that's gonna be making your like a misery.

I think my grandfather's in the end boasted over 100 light to medium AA guns and that's not counting her rapid fire secondarys that could churn up a wall of flak too.

The conning towers carried stupidly heavy armour even under the all-or-nothing scheme. From a quick Google, Yamato and Musashi had a whopping 19" of armour covering the conning tower, which is actually heavier than the main belt.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The conning towers carried stupidly heavy armour even under the all-or-nothing scheme. From a quick Google, Yamato and Musashi had a whopping 19" of armour covering the conning tower, which is actually heavier than the main belt.

Yeah. Misuoui had a small but insanely armrouee central section that the captain and a small number could operate the ship from in battle.

Least a foot thick.
It was narrow to save weight and keep the ships balence low.

Had one or a few post box sized vsion slits to see what was going but other than that. A virtual bunker at sea. Checked. Its 14 inches thick. From some reading the 7 inch deck armour of Yamamoto absorbed 500 pound bombs. This is twice as thick and curved not flat so the energy is deflected or not fully directed. It would take hell of a hit to punch through that.

Especially when as a curve, a angled hit has to penetrate the 14inch straight + the angle.

In effect more like 15-20 inches of armour potential.

http://www.tickledpinklife.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Iowa14.jpg

Don't get me wrong, a 16"/50 shell from an Iowa could still punch through it, but you're not doing it with a DD.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Don't get me wrong, a 16"/50 shell from an Iowa could still punch through it, but you're not doing it with a DD.

Oh yeah. A heavy Ap 16 inch is going through. It was tested vs a spare plate of Yamatos and it managed to penetrate. And that was thickest in world.

A 5-6inch AP is not even standing a chance. A 8 inch that weighed 2.5timws as much is not likely either.

Montana might have been armoured vs own shells but that was nof a fast class, and would have also have had the top grade US steel.

The US BB had a rare ability to be built near entirely of high grade steel far as I understand. Not just armour and so where needed. The US industry meant they could build majority if high end armoured and stronger steels.

Some nations could not afford the expensive nature of that design.

It wasn't that Japan couldn't afford high-grade steel, they physically couldn't produce it in the quantity needed.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
It wasn't that Japan couldn't afford high-grade steel, they physically couldn't produce it in the quantity needed.

All that steel would have been far better served building carriers or destroyers.

 Frazzled wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
It wasn't that Japan couldn't afford high-grade steel, they physically couldn't produce it in the quantity needed.

All that steel would have been far better served building carriers or destroyers.

Wouldn't have helped them anyway. At the risk of preaching to the choir, between the failure of Pearl Harbor to sink the US carriers and the fethup in delivering the declaration of war after the attack rather than before the Japanese were never going to get the US to agree to an armistice, which means the US wins through sheer industrial output. You guys built 24 Essex-class carriers (and a bunch of others) throughout the war, IIRC Japan built less than five carriers in total (including Shinano).

Or did you mean the steel in the Iowas would've been better spent on CVs and DDs?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
It wasn't that Japan couldn't afford high-grade steel, they physically couldn't produce it in the quantity needed.

All that steel would have been far better served building carriers or destroyers.

Wouldn't have helped them anyway. At the risk of preaching to the choir, between the failure of Pearl Harbor to sink the US carriers and the fethup in delivering the declaration of war after the attack rather than before the Japanese were never going to get the US to agree to an armistice, which means the US wins through sheer industrial output. You guys built 24 Essex-class carriers (and a bunch of others) throughout the war, IIRC Japan built less than five carriers in total (including Shinano).

Or did you mean the steel in the Iowas would've been better spent on CVs and DDs?

er...yes to that too?

yes the only way Japan could win the war was to not fight the war.

 Frazzled wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
It wasn't that Japan couldn't afford high-grade steel, they physically couldn't produce it in the quantity needed.

All that steel would have been far better served building carriers or destroyers.

Wouldn't have helped them anyway. At the risk of preaching to the choir, between the failure of Pearl Harbor to sink the US carriers and the fethup in delivering the declaration of war after the attack rather than before the Japanese were never going to get the US to agree to an armistice, which means the US wins through sheer industrial output. You guys built 24 Essex-class carriers (and a bunch of others) throughout the war, IIRC Japan built less than five carriers in total (including Shinano).

Or did you mean the steel in the Iowas would've been better spent on CVs and DDs?

er...yes to that too?

yes the only way Japan could win the war was to not fight the war.

Except even then they lose. America had cut off their oil. I'll let you imagine the effects upon the nation without any oil. They HAD TO HAVE the oil in Indonesia, or they suffer complete economic collapse.

In the end, while Japan made the decision to start shooting, their only other option was to basically surrender their autonomy completely back in 1941. America had cut off all other options. The ultranationalist government of the time just wasn't going to submit without a fight.

One could argue in light of that, what happened to Japan WAS a victory in the end. Yes, we smashed them flat... but then we helped them back up to vastly greater heights. Had the capitulated in 1941... would we have helped them back up that far afterwards? Somehow, I think not.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
It wasn't that Japan couldn't afford high-grade steel, they physically couldn't produce it in the quantity needed.

All that steel would have been far better served building carriers or destroyers.

Wouldn't have helped them anyway. At the risk of preaching to the choir, between the failure of Pearl Harbor to sink the US carriers and the fethup in delivering the declaration of war after the attack rather than before the Japanese were never going to get the US to agree to an armistice, which means the US wins through sheer industrial output. You guys built 24 Essex-class carriers (and a bunch of others) throughout the war, IIRC Japan built less than five carriers in total (including Shinano).

Or did you mean the steel in the Iowas would've been better spent on CVs and DDs?

er...yes to that too?

yes the only way Japan could win the war was to not fight the war.

Except even then they lose. America had cut off their oil. I'll let you imagine the effects upon the nation without any oil. They HAD TO HAVE the oil in Indonesia, or they suffer complete economic collapse.

In the end, while Japan made the decision to start shooting, their only other option was to basically surrender their autonomy completely back in 1941. America had cut off all other options. The ultranationalist government of the time just wasn't going to submit without a fight.

One could argue in light of that, what happened to Japan WAS a victory in the end. Yes, we smashed them flat... but then we helped them back up to vastly greater heights. Had the capitulated in 1941... would we have helped them back up that far afterwards? Somehow, I think not.

Well already at war. They had been fighting in China since the 30's.

True. And the American oil embargo was in reaction to that ongoing war. I suppose you could say Japan only wins if they don't invade China, Manchuria, and Korea to kick the whole thing off.

But by that point you've gone way past alternate history. An industrialized post-Meji Restoration Imperial Japan that doesn't go to war in Asia is not going to happen.

Well, there was a possibility of causing sufficient casualties to the US that they would choose to back off through pressure back home. The Vietnam route to victory if you like. The entire late war Japanese strategy was basically built around the concept of costing the US as much as possible in order to force an attritional stalemate. The political and social structure of Japan could tolerate much higher losses, and Japan knew it. Japan also knew it could no longer win or draw through conventional means.

The strategy was arguably working- Okinawa and Iwo Jima were very costly, and kamikaze was developing into a remarkably sophisticated system for keeping the pressure on the US fleet too. Invading Kyushu was predicted to cost the lives of a million US servicemen. It is possible that, had US progress up the home islands been slow enough, the US would be forced to the peace table before achieving total victory, which would be a political win for the Japanese regime.

Of course, we know the Japanese did surrender before this point- the exact combination of factors is still heavily debated, so I am just going to say Soviet and nuclear involvement. I know which factor I think is the bigger precipitant of Japanese surrender.

 Haighus wrote:
Well, there was a possibility of causing sufficient casualties to the US that they would choose to back off through pressure back home. The Vietnam route to victory if you like. The entire late war Japanese strategy was basically built around the concept of costing the US as much as possible in order to force an attritional stalemate. The political and social structure of Japan could tolerate much higher losses, and Japan knew it. Japan also knew it could no longer win or draw through conventional means.

The strategy was arguably working- Okinawa and Iwo Jima were very costly, and kamikaze was developing into a remarkably sophisticated system for keeping the pressure on the US fleet too. Invading Kyushu was predicted to cost the lives of a million US servicemen. It is possible that, had US progress up the home islands been slow enough, the US would be forced to the peace table before achieving total victory, which would be a political win for the Japanese regime.

Of course, we know the Japanese did surrender before this point- the exact combination of factors is still heavily debated, so I am just going to say Soviet and nuclear involvement. I know which factor I think is the bigger precipitant of Japanese surrender.

Yeah, I think very near the end the Soviets where preparing for a pivot and moving forces to pressure and push against the Japanese Chinese territories.

The Soviet armies at this point where battle hardened, well equipped and more than a match for the Japanese forces. Add there advancements in armour and assault guns, plus now no shortage of heavy guns and ability to cordinate the elements to some degree.

It would not have ended well for thr border armies. In the New top of line tanks on show at thr victory parade there latest models mounted 90mm main guns, and armour more like panthers and tigers.

Heavy. But compared to thr majority of Japan's classed light to light medium. It would have been a massacre.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vulcan wrote:
True. And the American oil embargo was in reaction to that ongoing war. I suppose you could say Japan only wins if they don't invade China, Manchuria, and Korea to kick the whole thing off.

But by that point you've gone way past alternate history. An industrialized post-Meji Restoration Imperial Japan that doesn't go to war in Asia is not going to happen.

Japan already had a pretty bad reputation, nan King and other events. They started a war with Soviets in 1939 ish. It did not end well and where quickly repulsed by the heavier meachanized forced under Zukov. A gak ton of a artillery also greatly helped level the odds to Russain forces.

Yep. That one that Zukov. That's where he first started to get reconized.

If thry did not start one war thry where determined to start another.

 jhe90 wrote:


Yeah, I think very near the end the Soviets where preparing for a pivot and moving forces to pressure and push against the Japanese Chinese territories.

Oh they didn't just prepare, they actually did attack and it was predictably disastrous for the depleted Japanese garrison forces that were in Manchuria and China. The best men had long since been transferred out for the other campaigns in this theater (Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc.). Shockingly, it was this development, not the terrifying new atomic weapon that the US was dropping on their cities, that actually forced the Japanese government to accept unconditional surrender.

 Vulcan wrote:
True. And the American oil embargo was in reaction to that ongoing war. I suppose you could say Japan only wins if they don't invade China, Manchuria, and Korea to kick the whole thing off.

But by that point you've gone way past alternate history. An industrialized post-Meji Restoration Imperial Japan that doesn't go to war in Asia is not going to happen.

Japan could invade Korea and manchuria.
The second war of course would end with an embargo, as it did.
Infact if Japan would've gone for the whole northern expansion it would've probably never been embargoed in the first place.

Also important to note, Japan was not militaristic constantly after the meji restauration.
The depression lead to failure which was attributed to the democratic system which then was used by the military to essentially take over.

 creeping-deth87 wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:


Yeah, I think very near the end the Soviets where preparing for a pivot and moving forces to pressure and push against the Japanese Chinese territories.

Oh they didn't just prepare, they actually did attack and it was predictably disastrous for the depleted Japanese garrison forces that were in Manchuria and China. The best men had long since been transferred out for the other campaigns in this theater (Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc.). Shockingly, it was this development, not the terrifying new atomic weapon that the US was dropping on their cities, that actually forced the Japanese government to accept unconditional surrender.

Give the soviet Union had "liberated" from Moscow to Berlin, and did not exactly hand back. They showed no sign of stopping.

Also, Unlike the US, the sabove mentioned stratagy to fight a brutal battle of attrition and so. Well the Soviets would not be so impacted. Or worse for Japan if thry got sandwiched between the massive allied fleets, battleships, carriers and vast 500+ ship bomber formations and the massive Soviet ground armies.

That would be a whole new level of unwinnable to end up sandwiched between two vengeful industrial giants. Japan would be up against millions of battle hardeded troops from the eastern and western armies pivoting East with there experienced troops and leadership.

 jhe90 wrote:

 creeping-deth87 wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:


Yeah, I think very near the end the Soviets where preparing for a pivot and moving forces to pressure and push against the Japanese Chinese territories.

Oh they didn't just prepare, they actually did attack and it was predictably disastrous for the depleted Japanese garrison forces that were in Manchuria and China. The best men had long since been transferred out for the other campaigns in this theater (Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc.). Shockingly, it was this development, not the terrifying new atomic weapon that the US was dropping on their cities, that actually forced the Japanese government to accept unconditional surrender.

Give the soviet Union had "liberated" from Moscow to Berlin, and did not exactly hand back. They showed no sign of stopping.

Also, Unlike the US, the sabove mentioned stratagy to fight a brutal battle of attrition and so. Well the Soviets would not be so impacted. Or worse for Japan if thry got sandwiched between the massive allied fleets, battleships, carriers and vast 500+ ship bomber formations and the massive Soviet ground armies.

That would be a whole new level of unwinnable to end up sandwiched between two vengeful industrial giants. Japan would be up against millions of battle hardeded troops from the eastern and western armies pivoting East with there experienced troops and leadership.

Russia didn't have the naval capability to invade the home islands.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 creeping-deth87 wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:


Yeah, I think very near the end the Soviets where preparing for a pivot and moving forces to pressure and push against the Japanese Chinese territories.

Oh they didn't just prepare, they actually did attack and it was predictably disastrous for the depleted Japanese garrison forces that were in Manchuria and China. The best men had long since been transferred out for the other campaigns in this theater (Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc.). Shockingly, it was this development, not the terrifying new atomic weapon that the US was dropping on their cities, that actually forced the Japanese government to accept unconditional surrender.

Give the soviet Union had "liberated" from Moscow to Berlin, and did not exactly hand back. They showed no sign of stopping.

Also, Unlike the US, the sabove mentioned stratagy to fight a brutal battle of attrition and so. Well the Soviets would not be so impacted. Or worse for Japan if thry got sandwiched between the massive allied fleets, battleships, carriers and vast 500+ ship bomber formations and the massive Soviet ground armies.

That would be a whole new level of unwinnable to end up sandwiched between two vengeful industrial giants. Japan would be up against millions of battle hardeded troops from the eastern and western armies pivoting East with there experienced troops and leadership.

Russia didn't have the naval capability to invade the home islands.

Maybe not. They could take out thr majority of there land holdings and starve them of any of thr resources outside the home islands. Add US blockades and Japan's indutiries and production would be truly crippled.

Also the loss of all there gains would be a severe blownto there pride and honour.

 jhe90 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 creeping-deth87 wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:


Yeah, I think very near the end the Soviets where preparing for a pivot and moving forces to pressure and push against the Japanese Chinese territories.

Oh they didn't just prepare, they actually did attack and it was predictably disastrous for the depleted Japanese garrison forces that were in Manchuria and China. The best men had long since been transferred out for the other campaigns in this theater (Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc.). Shockingly, it was this development, not the terrifying new atomic weapon that the US was dropping on their cities, that actually forced the Japanese government to accept unconditional surrender.

Give the soviet Union had "liberated" from Moscow to Berlin, and did not exactly hand back. They showed no sign of stopping.

Also, Unlike the US, the sabove mentioned stratagy to fight a brutal battle of attrition and so. Well the Soviets would not be so impacted. Or worse for Japan if thry got sandwiched between the massive allied fleets, battleships, carriers and vast 500+ ship bomber formations and the massive Soviet ground armies.

That would be a whole new level of unwinnable to end up sandwiched between two vengeful industrial giants. Japan would be up against millions of battle hardeded troops from the eastern and western armies pivoting East with there experienced troops and leadership.

Russia didn't have the naval capability to invade the home islands.

Maybe not. They could take out thr majority of there land holdings and starve them of any of thr resources outside the home islands. Add US blockades and Japan's indutiries and production would be truly crippled.

Also the loss of all there gains would be a severe blownto there pride and honour.

Soviets weren't even needed for that, they could've just shipped recent excess to the CCCP forces and help them a bit in manchuria, done.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 creeping-deth87 wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:


Yeah, I think very near the end the Soviets where preparing for a pivot and moving forces to pressure and push against the Japanese Chinese territories.

Oh they didn't just prepare, they actually did attack and it was predictably disastrous for the depleted Japanese garrison forces that were in Manchuria and China. The best men had long since been transferred out for the other campaigns in this theater (Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc.). Shockingly, it was this development, not the terrifying new atomic weapon that the US was dropping on their cities, that actually forced the Japanese government to accept unconditional surrender.

Give the soviet Union had "liberated" from Moscow to Berlin, and did not exactly hand back. They showed no sign of stopping.

Also, Unlike the US, the sabove mentioned stratagy to fight a brutal battle of attrition and so. Well the Soviets would not be so impacted. Or worse for Japan if thry got sandwiched between the massive allied fleets, battleships, carriers and vast 500+ ship bomber formations and the massive Soviet ground armies.

That would be a whole new level of unwinnable to end up sandwiched between two vengeful industrial giants. Japan would be up against millions of battle hardeded troops from the eastern and western armies pivoting East with there experienced troops and leadership.

Russia didn't have the naval capability to invade the home islands.

Maybe not. They could take out thr majority of there land holdings and starve them of any of thr resources outside the home islands. Add US blockades and Japan's indutiries and production would be truly crippled.

Also the loss of all there gains would be a severe blownto there pride and honour.

Soviets weren't even needed for that, they could've just shipped recent excess to the CCCP forces and help them a bit in manchuria, done.

And give up easy lands to liberate. Large chunks of pre communist China where barely industrial, but huge amounts of land and resources.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
It wasn't that Japan couldn't afford high-grade steel, they physically couldn't produce it in the quantity needed.

All that steel would have been far better served building carriers or destroyers.

Wouldn't have helped them anyway. At the risk of preaching to the choir, between the failure of Pearl Harbor to sink the US carriers and the fethup in delivering the declaration of war after the attack rather than before the Japanese were never going to get the US to agree to an armistice, which means the US wins through sheer industrial output. You guys built 24 Essex-class carriers (and a bunch of others) throughout the war, IIRC Japan built less than five carriers in total (including Shinano).

Or did you mean the steel in the Iowas would've been better spent on CVs and DDs?

er...yes to that too?

yes the only way Japan could win the war was to not fight the war.

Except even then they lose. America had cut off their oil. I'll let you imagine the effects upon the nation without any oil. They HAD TO HAVE the oil in Indonesia, or they suffer complete economic collapse.

In the end, while Japan made the decision to start shooting, their only other option was to basically surrender their autonomy completely back in 1941. America had cut off all other options. The ultranationalist government of the time just wasn't going to submit without a fight.

One could argue in light of that, what happened to Japan WAS a victory in the end. Yes, we smashed them flat... but then we helped them back up to vastly greater heights. Had the capitulated in 1941... would we have helped them back up that far afterwards? Somehow, I think not.

No. The point of the oil embargo was for them to quit their depredations in China and Indochina. They could have quit their depredations in China and indochina. After all, they did just fine after the war.

jhe90 wrote:
Japan already had a pretty bad reputation, nan King and other events. They started a war with Soviets in 1939 ish. It did not end well and where quickly repulsed by the heavier meachanized forced under Zukov. A gak ton of a artillery also greatly helped level the odds to Russain forces.

Yep. That one that Zukov. That's where he first started to get reconized.

If thry did not start one war thry where determined to start another.

ZHukov. Georgiy Konstantinovich Zhukov.

Георгий Константинович Жуков. 'Ж' is pronounced 'zhe'. 'З' is Z in Cyrillic, as in 'Звезда/zvezda' (star).

EDIT - Also, 1938.

 Haighus wrote:
Well, there was a possibility of causing sufficient casualties to the US that they would choose to back off through pressure back home.

Not really. The US had complete air and naval superiority and could simply blockade Japan while bombing every square inch of the country into rubble with near-zero casualties. The US has little or no pressure to invade immediately in an era where bombing cities off the map was considered standard procedure instead of a horrifying atrocity. And at some point enough of Japan would be slaughtered that an invasion could succeed.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
Well, there was a possibility of causing sufficient casualties to the US that they would choose to back off through pressure back home.

Not really. The US had complete air and naval superiority and could simply blockade Japan while bombing every square inch of the country into rubble with near-zero casualties. The US has little or no pressure to invade immediately in an era where bombing cities off the map was considered standard procedure instead of a horrifying atrocity. And at some point enough of Japan would be slaughtered that an invasion could succeed.

Additionally lets not gloss over the planned invasion included multiple nuclear strikes to clear the way.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
Well, there was a possibility of causing sufficient casualties to the US that they would choose to back off through pressure back home.

Not really. The US had complete air and naval superiority and could simply blockade Japan while bombing every square inch of the country into rubble with near-zero casualties. The US has little or no pressure to invade immediately in an era where bombing cities off the map was considered standard procedure instead of a horrifying atrocity. And at some point enough of Japan would be slaughtered that an invasion could succeed.

Additionally lets not gloss over the planned invasion included multiple nuclear strikes to clear the way.

Well the first two where just almost test runs. They did not spend perhaps the most expensive military project ever for one bomb. It was a production line. In a short time they could of obliterated a city a month or sooner with nukes.

They had fifteen planned for Operation Downfall. This was before fallout was understood though, so Allied troops would have been walking through fallout 24 hours after each blast. Not bueno.