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.

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.

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!

 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.

 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?

 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.

Wait what?

Whats the Titanic have to do with WW1?

Or is my sarcastic meter broken?

 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.

I'm not even sure if tadashi is still a part of this thread.

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

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.

 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"?

I believe the Atomic Bomb was the right call for exactly what you said whembly.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

I like how it started with, lets pretend...
And then the collective internet said NOOOOOO! #butthurt

 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.

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.

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.

 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.

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

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?

Seems plausable to me

Assuming Britain didn't try anything...
Which it would of course.

This is sad. I seem to have missed a good occasion to bash at Tadashi. Meh.

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.

Submarine carriers?
The ones that could only carry 3 aircraft at a time?

 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?