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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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?

 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?

 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.

 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.

Its like you think they actually have elections in a lot of south American countries.

 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.

 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.

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.

 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.

Or any idea relating to politics outside of what anime has shown him.

Unfortunately for him, Hyakka Ryouran isn't real.

I have to admit Tadashi. You crack me up at times

 Jihadin wrote:
I have to admit Tadashi. You crack me up at times

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.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Or any idea relating to politics outside of what anime has shown him.

Seeing as democracy has failed in my mother's country and in many others...I believe in more traditional forms of governance.

Mkay lets trying going back on topic. No more America or Tadashi bashing today please

 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.

 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...

 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.

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

 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?

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.....

 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.

 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.

 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.

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?

 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...

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.

 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.