Wars and ConflictsΜύ permalink
How Japan could have won the Pacific war
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Saturday, 8th December 2007
according to a British Naval historian. This gentleman contends that had Nagumo destroyed the oil storage tanks and drydock repair facilities at Pearl Harbour on Dec 7, 1941 (which he could easily have done with a third attack wave) and had Yamamoto simultaneously launched an attack on the Panama Canal (at the time, air and naval defences there were almost nil) Japan could have isolated the Pacific theatre from the Atlantic which probably would have crippled America's ability to fight a 2-ocean war for a couple of years. With the US Pacific fleet pushed back to the west coast of North America and being forced to negotiate the Straits of Magellan (which would have made a great hunting ground for Japanese submarines) or the Cape of Good Hope to move between the two oceans, their ability to operate in the Pacific would be hamstrung and the Japanese navy could run wild.
By the time the US got around to repairing the damage to the canal, Japan may have knocked Australia out of the war and might well have established her Aleutians-to-Borneo defence line that the US could have been forced to acknowledge. That would have resulted in the peace treaty that Japan went to war to obtain.
Any thoughts on this hypothesis?Link to this forum: How Japan could have won the Pacific war
-
Message 2
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Saturday, 8th December 2007
Erik
Easy answer: The Manhattan Project.
After Pearl Harbor, the US would never have compromised with Japan.Link to this forum: How Japan could have won the Pacific war
-
Message 3
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Saturday, 8th December 2007
I suspect that it would have been physicaly very difficult to seriously damage the Panama canal,given the kind the bombs avaliable, same goes for the dry dock facilities at Pearl Harbour.
Link to this forum: How Japan could have won the Pacific war
-
Message 4
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Saturday, 8th December 2007
Could they have done anything to the canal that couldn't have been repaired in a few months? They wouldn't have namby pambied around like they do now about that, and certainly could have easily secured the canal against further attack.
Would Australian have rolled up that quickly?
They could not have taken Hawaii anytime soon even with no Pacific fleet--it was in ferry range for bombers and transport from the mainland and is a defenders dream terrain.
Even if they were maximally successful initially, and ended with a separate peace with Australia, firmly esconsed in the Aleutians, and knocking on Hawaii's door or having landed on some of those islands (meaning ongoing fighting), for that to translate into a victory would have required that the US want to negotiate a peace with them.
Why would they? There was not a shred of defeatism in the public even with the loss of an entire Army in the Phillipines. There was no real threat of a successful invasion of the mainland, just an imagined one. I don't think even Roosevelt could have pulled it off politically if he tried--and why would he try?
It would just be a longer harder slog before them, but they would have to know that they would win eventually as long as they didn't quit.
The big question is, what would have happened in Europe. The massive lend-lease aid and overwhelming involvement in the European theatre would have been much less likely while Japanese could cruisers could shell San Fransisco whenever they felt like it. One of the important aid routes to the USSR would be shut off anyway.
If Japan did try to actually take the Hawaii Islands, it would have been such a drain on her resources, that I think she might even have rolled up faster once the tide did turn.Link to this forum: How Japan could have won the Pacific war
-
Message 5
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Saturday, 8th December 2007
I therefore don't think Japan could have won. But maybe Germany would have their war. I think that the US would have been engaged in the battle of the Atlantic to keep Britain's lifeline open and committed to helping the Brit's eat and defend themselves, but if they really felt pressed by the Japanese--may not would do much more than that for a while. If, in the absence of American aid, the Russian's kept falling back, the peace parties in Britain may, seeing no relief on the horizon, gain the upper hand and make an accomodation with Hitler? If the Brits were out of it, the US would get out of it, and the war would go down in US history as an Asiatic war with a little temporary naval side show in the North Atlantic before leaving the Europeans to their fate, which would have been entirely in accord with the attitude of the people anyway. It was the administration, not the public that made it a European war for us. Even with Hitler's declaration, the US could have taken an option of only engaging navally. Dive bombers weren't about to appear over Washington.
Link to this forum: How Japan could have won the Pacific war
-
Message 6
Posted by terakunene (U9761462) on Sunday, 9th December 2007
I think it unlikely that the Japaeses could ever have beaten the Americans.
The Japaese had beaten the lightweights on the block, British, Dutch and French empires comparatively easily. They must have thought that the Americans would have caved in as well.
American rsources were vast estimated at about 13 times greater than the Japanese even after snapping up the various colonies.
The Manhatten project was to consume a quarter of all American resources but the other 3/4 still outproduced Germany, Italy and Japan combined and still have production for Lease Lend.
Whatever Japan did whether at Pearl Harbour or Panama, repairs would be a drop in a vast American bucket.Link to this forum: How Japan could have won the Pacific war
-
Message 7
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Sunday, 9th December 2007
All that you say is true, but I consider it possible that the resources allocated to the European war might well have been stifled by attempts to repair the canal and to move enough equipment and supplies to Hawaii to rejuvenate that territory's ability to become the military supply area and firm jumping-off spot into the Pacific theatre that it ultimately became.
You also have to assume that Japan wouldn't be just sitting on its fantails watching while the US repaired the canal or was repairing and re-arming Hawaii. Japan's ships would have pretty well free-rein in the Pacific for a long time. Remember, the US had only 3 capital ships -- all carriers -- left in the entire zone after Pearl, and with the drydocks and refueling areas destroyed, they might not have been able to get back to the west coast intact. It's 2,500 miles and that's a very long way to travel in a hostile ocean with limited fuel. And Japan's control of the Pacific would have been absolute for a long time. Visualize her ships bombarding the San Diego, Long Beach, and San Francisco military facilities as well as the cities themselves. Had she struck immediately after bombing Pearl Harbour, a Japanese invasion force could have taken Hawaii, and altho' that would have been costly, it could be well worth it. (Conquering the US would not be possible, of course, but that was never one of Japan's goals).
That points up another extreme difficulty -- the distances involved. Without Hawaii as a staging area, it's more than 7,000 miles from the west coast of America to the islands of the Far East. Add to that the distances that would have to be travelled around the Horn or Africa and the supply problems become immense.
Repairing the Panama canal wouldn't be a job that would be done in a month or two.The Panama canal is a very carefully balanced orchestration which makes it very, very vulnerable. Blow one or two of the locks and it could disrupt the entire organization, a disaster that would take many months to repair.
(Please understand that I'm playing devil's advocate here. I doubt if the US would lose such a conflict, but these points were brought up by the British historian, and are definitely worth considering)Link to this forum: How Japan could have won the Pacific war
-
Message 8
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Sunday, 9th December 2007
Even if the Japanese third wave had destroyed the oil tanks and dry dock at Pearl Harbour it would only have been an inconvenience for the US.
Even sustained allied bombing during WW2 failed to put any port out of commission for long, and they were using heavy bombers in huge numbers, not small carrier attack aircraft with relatively small bomb loads.
Only if the Japanese had launch an invasion of the Hawaiian Islands could they have denied the Americans the use of Pearl Harbour.
Even given a Japanese conquest of Hawaii the end result would have been the same, eventual destruction of the Japanese Empire and an allied victory.
Australia was an irrelevance strategically, and a Japanese invasion would probably have shorten the war by committing Japanese forces to a campaign that they could not possibly have supported without denuding other more vital areas.
The bigger the Japanese conquest became the less forces they had to defend it and given the vastness of the pacific the victory would have gone to the nation capable of building the most ships, and that was always going to be the USA.
Their industrial might and huge resources would still have been totally overwhelming compared to over stretched and underdeveloped Japan.Link to this forum: How Japan could have won the Pacific war
-
Message 9
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Sunday, 9th December 2007
The Japaese had beaten the lightweights on the block, British, Dutch and French empires comparatively easily. They must have thought that the Americans would have caved in as well.
Μύ
Obviously the Japanese attack the American at the same time they attack the British and Dutch, so it was never a case of them having beaten one and then attacking the other.
The fact is the Japanese Empire did not defeat the British Empire, they won a few early victories against the colonial powers including the USA, but they failed to defeat an over stretched British army.
France had already been defeated by the Germans, their fleet was bottled up or had been sunk, so you cannot claim the Japanese defeated the French Empire.
The same for the Dutch, they had already been defeated by Germany, so in effect Japan was simply annexing territory that could not have been defended.
The Japanese early victories against the British gained some ground, but even with the vast majority of her forces committed to Europe and the Middle East the British Empire eventually stopped the Japanese army and totally defeated them. Hardly lightweights and hardly a victory for the Japanese Empire.Link to this forum: How Japan could have won the Pacific war
-
Message 10
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Sunday, 9th December 2007
"Had she struck immediately after bombing Pearl Harbour, a Japanese invasion force could have taken Hawaii"
I disagree. I researched the disposition of forces several months, or perhaps a year ago for a thread on the board and don't want to dig all that up again, but the Hawaiian Islands would have been a very very hard nut to crack. With a superbly executed invasion, the Japanese could have obtained a toehold--perhaps at Pearl to deny that harbor--but could not have conquered the Islands anytime soon. I don't see how they ever could have if the US contested it. There are 5 major Islands but dozens of other sizable islands. There were already multiple airfields and sizable Army forces. The inhabitants, including the ethinic Japanese, were not going to welcome an invasion. The islands themselves are scattered over nearly a thousand miles making a fully effective naval blockade impossible without radar. The Japanese would have been faced with multiple shifting centers of resistance at the least.
Having served in Asia, I assume that you have been to and toured Hawaii--the ground in most of the islands would have been nearly impossible to take against even a minimally supplied defense. The Japanese would have been moving men and supplies from a very long distance, while the US could have ferried bombers long-range fighters, and high valued supplies by air.
Regarding unchallanged supremacy of the pacific, you arent' considering the vulnerability of naval vessels to land based aircraft, which could have covered much of the route to Hawaii anyway, and certaintly would have made a bombardment of shore defenses on the West Coast, or a second run at Pannama and exercise not worth the cost.
I think that in a best case scenario for Japanese success, localized landings on Hawaii followed by a quaqmire there would have been the most the Empire could have accomplished. A Japanese victory would have required that the US quit then, and I don't think that was politically possible even if the administrated was so inclined.
How does the author propose that they do so much damage to the canal? The Pacific side locks are several miles inland, and surrounded by mountains, and the entrance is deep inside a large bay. Unless they do it simultaneously with the pearl harbor, it is going to be bristling with defenses. Are they going to send a second task force with carriers simultaneous with the attack on Pearl that far east? Are they going to divide their fleet? Surely they are going to send carriers with an adequate escort. Even if they do it, and get carrier based aircraft to the locks--which is conceivable if it is part of the surprise attack, so what? The entire canal took only 3 years to build and the locks were the easy part. There is nothing they could do to them with carrier based aircraft that couldn't be fixed in a few months at the most at that time (it would take 23 years for the environmental impact statement today) under wartime conditions.
Of course even so, the canal becomes less important as time goes on as the shipyards on the west coast will be building like crazy--secure under air cover.Link to this forum: How Japan could have won the Pacific war
-
Message 11
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Monday, 10th December 2007
Even the Japanese managed to capture Hawaii,and after reading Kurts post it seems a a tough act,how would the Japanese hold it and supply its forces on their new prize?
The Japanese didnt exactly have a great record when it came to convoy protection and I would imagine they would have to allocate a task force to cover Hawaii,but they would also have to provide cover for South East Asia,Java,Indian Ocean etc.That means a hell of a lot of ships required to provide an adequate defence or else you have a very large overstretch and a big logistical nightmare.
I dont know if the Japanese expected the US to cave in as the Russians had done at the turn of the century.They may have managed to pull off another "Port Arthur"but the US was a very different beast to a weak imperial Russia.
Unless they believed that there would be another Tsunishima which would force the US hand,and bring consessions.
I do not think for one moment that Yamamoto would have thought this,but what about his superiors in the Japanese government?
VFLink to this forum: How Japan could have won the Pacific war
-
Message 12
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Monday, 10th December 2007
Wouldnt the occupation of Hawaii dragged them away from the main point of the war which was the capture of Malaya and the Dutch East Indies?
They need to hamstring the pacific fleet, not nessacarily to destroy it?
As for a third wave, where where the fuel tanks at pearl harbour? if they are down wind from the site of the first two attacks theres the possibility of them being concealed by smoke, also the AA, is going to be awake now. It would have made more sense for them to have been dealt with first? if you get the oil then it doesnt matter what ships you miss they cant really go any where till fresh supplies are brought in.
It also means that your submarines can just sit off the islands and target the oil tankers coming in. Much more bang for your yen.Link to this forum: How Japan could have won the Pacific war
-
Message 13
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Monday, 10th December 2007
Dan
"It also means that your submarines can just sit off the islands and target the oil tankers coming in. Much more bang for your yen."
To be honest I dont think that idea was in the japanese mentality.If they had had a man like Donetz then they may have been able to achieve some success.
regards VfLink to this forum: How Japan could have won the Pacific war
-
Message 14
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Monday, 10th December 2007
Erik Lindsay,
... had Nagumo destroyed the oil storage tanks and drydock repair facilities at Pearl Harbour on Dec 7, 1941 (which he could easily have done with a third attack wave) and had Yamamoto simultaneously launched an attack on the Panama Canal (at the time, air and naval defences there were almost nil) Japan could have isolated the Pacific theatre from the Atlantic which probably would have crippled America's ability to fight a 2-ocean war for a couple of years.Μύ
Possibly, if Yamamoto had thought of attacking the Canal, but it would have taxed Japanese refuelling capacities to their limits, if not beyond. As it was, the Japanese Admiralty didn't consider a Panama attack until late in the war when they had no chance of success. They had on the drawing board a "submarine aircraft carrier" which kept a plane in an on-deck hangar, to be launched when surfaced. Both plane and sub were meant for a one-way mission.
With the US Pacific fleet pushed back to the west coast of North America and being forced to negotiate the Straits of Magellan (which would have made a great hunting ground for Japanese submarines) or the Cape of Good Hope to move between the two oceans, their ability to operate in the Pacific would be hamstrung and the Japanese navy could run wild.Μύ
This strategy would also have taxed the Japanese refueling capacities. As it was, they didn't pursue an aggressive submarine strategy as did the US and Germany. Despite American panic, nothing more than a midget sub or two ever surfaced off the California coast, and none ever sank a ship east of Hawaii.
By the time the US got around to repairing the damage to the canal, Japan may have knocked Australia out of the war and might well have established her Aleutians-to-Borneo defence line that the US could have been forced to acknowledge. That would have resulted in the peace treaty that Japan went to war to obtain.
Any thoughts on this hypothesis? Μύ
Has that writer tried to wargame such a scenario, or was he just pipe-dreaming at the keyboard to meet a deadline?Link to this forum: How Japan could have won the Pacific war
-
Message 15
Posted by Triceratops (U3420301) on Monday, 10th December 2007
The problem with a third wave, is that by the time the machines were refuelled and rearmed,launched and flown to Pearl Harbor and returned to the carriers, it would be night.Crews coming back over water at night and try to locate and land on their ships in the dark could have cost Nagumo his entire strike force.
The book to read is HP Willmott's "Pearl Harbor",which demolishes the whole idea of a third strike. It also shows just how marginal the Japanese attack was: the armour piercing bombs dropped at Pearl were the only ones in the Japanese inventory.The antics of Admiral Yamaguchi when he was told that Soryu and Hiryu were to be left behind would have had him sacked in any other navy,instead his division took part after all.
Not knowing the whereabouts of the American carriers, Nagumo made the only decision he could and broke off the action.
Trike.Link to this forum: How Japan could have won the Pacific war
-
Message 16
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Tuesday, 11th December 2007
Triceratops,
The problem with a third wave, is that by the time the machines were refuelled and rearmed,launched and flown to Pearl Harbor and returned to the carriers, it would be night.Crews coming back over water at night and try to locate and land on their ships in the dark could have cost Nagumo his entire strike force.Μύ
Given that the first two waves were in the morning, why would a third take until after dusk to finish?
Not knowing the whereabouts of the American carriers, Nagumo made the only decision he could and broke off the action.Μύ
And left the above-ground fuel tanks just sitting there. Well worth a third-wave attack. Or a first-wave, even.Link to this forum: How Japan could have won the Pacific war
-
Message 17
Posted by terakunene (U9761462) on Tuesday, 11th December 2007
Kurt Bronson is essentially correct. The further the Japanese had to send supplies across the pacific, eg Hawaii, the closer to the American mainland. Move close enough and carriers aren't needed, attacking land based American aircraft will then do.
As the pacific war moved away from mobility into "grind" the Americans had resources, facilities and manpower to win any such contest.
The position of the French empire is a technicality. The French had surrendered to the Germans. A Vichy government was formed which was then officially a neutral power. It still seems to be the French (Vichy) Empire in the Far East.
The Dutch had approved the money to build three large and powerful warships to defend their empire in the Far East. The Japanese moved before they could be built.Link to this forum: How Japan could have won the Pacific war
-
Message 18
Posted by terakunene (U9761462) on Tuesday, 11th December 2007
After holland was invaded by the Germans, a Dutch government, in exile, was set up in the UK. This still claimed the Dutch East Indies as part of their empire.
There can be no doubt of a Dutch defeat when the Japanese occuppied the Dutch East Indies including Batavia, the capital of the DEI.Link to this forum: How Japan could have won the Pacific war
-
Message 19
Posted by Mad Bollie (U2306897) on Tuesday, 11th December 2007
Well look at it another way. The Japanese couldn't take Midway in '42 against the same 3 aircraft carriers that survived Pearl Harbour, so there is no reason to assume they could have done so at Hawaii. (I assume Midway had less defences than Hawaii did).
Now taking out the Panama Canal might have been an interesting ploy. But a carrier strike? Wouldn't a raid of some sort have been a better tool for that job? Or even a spy/sabotage mission? (I admit I have no idea how well defended the Panama Canal was).Link to this forum: How Japan could have won the Pacific war
-
Message 20
Posted by George1507 (U2607963) on Tuesday, 11th December 2007
It's 2700 miles or so from Hawaii to California. Even if the Japanese could have taken Hawaii (which in itself was impossible) then the notion that they could use it as "a stepping stone" to the USA is just nonsense. No land based planes could have mounted an attack on the USA from Hawaii. It's only marginally further from Dublin to New York than it is from Honolulu to Los Angeles.
If Operation Sealion had succeeded, would you envisage the Germans attacking New York from Ireland?
It's just nonsense.Link to this forum: How Japan could have won the Pacific war
-
Message 21
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Tuesday, 11th December 2007
madbollie,
...The Japanese couldn't take Midway in '42 against the same 3 aircraft carriers that survived Pearl Harbour ... Μύ
Not quite. Lexington, Saratoga and Enterprise survived the PH attack. However, Lexington was sunk at the Coral Sea in May '42.
For Midway the US had Enterprise, Hornet and Yorktown, the latter still undergoing repairs from the Coral Sea (the Japanese thought they'd sunk her there.) Saratoga was in San Diego for repairs after taking a long-range torpedo.
Now taking out the Panama Canal might have been an interesting ploy. But a carrier strike? Wouldn't a raid of some sort have been a better tool for that job? Or even a spy/sabotage mission?Μύ
Or a carrier strike? They did such a bang-up job on PH, why couldn't they do the same in the PC?Link to this forum: How Japan could have won the Pacific war
-
Message 22
Posted by Triceratops (U3420301) on Tuesday, 11th December 2007
White Camry,
I was working this from memory. Had Willmott's book from the library a while back and it gives the timings and explains why a third wave was a non starter. I'll try a get hold of it before the weekend and post up the relevant info.
Meantime, a couple of sites which discuss a possible third wave, both of which mention the risk of a third wave ending up flying at night.
Or a first-wave, even.Μύ
It would have been better from the Japanese perspective to destroy the oil farms and dockyards rather than some geriatric battleships. As one American officer put it "Pearl Harbor changed the fleet from a 20 knot fleet to a 30 knot fleet"
Trike.Link to this forum: How Japan could have won the Pacific war
-
Message 23
Posted by Triceratops (U3420301) on Sunday, 16th December 2007
On the possibilty of an attack on the dockyard and fuel depots by a third wave of Japanese aircraft;
First we should take a look at the orders given to Nagumo by Yamamoto issued on the 1st November 1941...."Targets for attack are airfields,aircraft carriers,battleships,cruisers and other warships,merchant shipping,port facilities and land installations in that order"...so any third wave attack would have been directed against the cruisers and destroyers of the US Pacific fleet and not the dockyards.
Secondly, was such an attack feasible?. The aircraft of the second wave arrived back on the carriers at about 12.15pm. Sunset at Pearl Harbor on 7th December 1941 was at 17.12pm so the Japanese had just 5 hours to refuel and rearm their planes, mount an attack and return before dark. Since a return flight to Pearl took about 4 hrs and we know from Midway that it took around 80 minutes for the Japanese to refuel and rearm a strike there is insufficient time for another strike even if the Japanese had started work immediately.
There is a public perception that there was an argument on the bridge of the Akagi about this, mainly from the film Tora, Tora, Tora. In fact the only Japanese officer to make such a claim was Fuchida( in December 1963!) and this claim was refuted by Genda in his memoirs published in 1967 "According to Dr Prange's book, Tora, Tora, Tora and others , a fierce argument took place on the bridge of the Akagi[after the recovering of the second wave aircraft]as regards the proposal for a second strike[ie a third wave].This is not true. The Author [Genda] had been on the bridge for some eight hours before the start of operations and remained there for the following four days. Such a proposal was never made.I of course did not make such a proposal myself. The day before the attack, I suggested to Nagumo that a second strike would be necessary should the first one fall short. That is all I did.Nagumo seemed to have no plan to implement a second strike. Later Kusaka told me that even before the start of the operation, he and Nagumo had decided not to carry out a second strike".
In summary, there was no plan for a third wave, not enough daylight to execute it and if there had been it would have gone after the cruisers at Pearl and not the dockyard.Link to this forum: How Japan could have won the Pacific war
-
Message 24
Posted by schuhbox4 (U10370736) on Thursday, 20th December 2007
I would argue it is almost pure fancy to suggest that the Japanese could have launched a successful attack on the Panama Canal. The critical element in the attack on Pearl Harbor was maintaining the element of surprise. To avoid detection on the way to Hawaii, the Japanese fleet meticulously avoided commercial shipping lanes. How could you possibly avoid shipping lanes and arrive entirely undetected at the Panama Canal, one of the busiest sea lanes in the world? Even a few hours advance notice would greatly decrease the odds of a successful attack. I'll also agree with the others who are skeptical of the ability of carrier based aircraft to do any lasting damage to the canal. Moreover, I doubt even a successful attack on the Canal could have changed the ultimate denouement of the war. While such an attack may have had some affect on the American navy and commercial shipping, it would not have changed the fundamental fact that Japan lacked the resources to fight a protracted war with the US.
Link to this forum: How Japan could have won the Pacific war
-
Message 25
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Thursday, 20th December 2007
Has anyone here actually seen the locks on the panama canal? They are chuffing huge! you are not going to going to even scratch the paint with a bomb that can be carried on a carrier based aircraft. and as Shubox has pointed out you cant tip toe up on them with an aircraft carrier.
What you could do I suppose is St Nazaire it but there are more than one set of locks, you would have to try to take out more than one pair.Link to this forum: How Japan could have won the Pacific war
-
Message 26
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Thursday, 20th December 2007
Hi Bttdp
Having followed some of these posts in the last couple of days I would have to agree with you.
I cannot see how carrier aircraft could "take out" the locks of the Panama Canal,they maybe able to damage it or mangle some of the required machinery to operate them,but I cannot see how you could do anything more than inconvienience the mighty US.As you point out its a fair old distance for the Japanese to sail undetected and get back unmolested.
You have the same problem doing a "St Nazaire" .The RN's operation wasnt that far outside their backyard,and Ive got a sneaky suspicion that even if the Japanese had thought of such an idea they would made it over complicated with a multitude of diversionary raids an fleet movements!(just an observation on some of the Japanese Admirals later plans,such as the Sho? plan at Leyte)
I still think that the Japanese completely mis understood the American psyche and resultant response,Its almost as if they expected them to do as the Russians did following the disaster at Tsushima,to go home,conslidate and accept a blow to the nose.There is no comparison between Russia in 1905 and America in 1941.Pearl Harbour may have been a tactical masterpiece (if an underhand one) but a strategic blunder of monumental proportions.
Happy Christmas
VfLink to this forum: How Japan could have won the Pacific war
-
Message 27
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Friday, 21st December 2007
The attraction to us armchair strategists of a raid on the Big Ditch, like that of the notion of capturing Hawaii, is dependent on a glance at the location or a globe or large scale map, without really looking at the terrain or considering it from an operational level.
The canal locks are several miles inland, and the entrance even then is far into a large bay with several islands--a stealth approach is difficult, the flight paths for bombing runs very limited, and the damage to be done limited.
Even if damaged severely, you only delay the American resonse by a matter of weeks. The Horn is still there, California still pumps oil, and the trains still run to the west coast where shipyards proliferate.Link to this forum: How Japan could have won the Pacific war
-
Message 28
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Friday, 21st December 2007
VirtualF
its a fair old distance for the Japanese to sail undetected and get back unmolested.Μύ
That last part is the key clause: A one-way mission wouldn't have to worry about getting back unmolested.Link to this forum: How Japan could have won the Pacific war
-
Message 29
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Sunday, 23rd December 2007
I was toying with the idea of loading several merchent men up with explosives and sailing them inton the canal prior to the attack on pearl harbour. Allow them to get spaced out in the various locks so that on december 7 when the first wave goes in you can blow them up at the same time.
Way way to complicated to actually work but feasable.Link to this forum: How Japan could have won the Pacific war
-
Message 30
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Sunday, 23rd December 2007
The first decent idea to do any real damage.
Of course, the US would still win the war. With the canal completly out of commission, there would be a 6 week delay in moving ships from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Once in the Pacific, they would have full access to the West coast port facilities, supplied from all over the nation by rail, and to the fuel supplies on the west coast. Knocking out the canal only delays the US's initial response--it doesn't diminish it.
The same is basically true of the fuel dump. It creates an initial delay, by after the earliest days of scrambling to respond, would no longer be having any impact.
And if all this, as seems most likely, motivated the US to focus it response on Japan instead of basically abandoning the US's Pacific forces to make do with what they had, the ultimate effect would likely be even more adverse for Japan.Link to this forum: How Japan could have won the Pacific war
-
Message 31
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Sunday, 23rd December 2007
Hi Kurt for what its worth i agree with you. All a sucessful attack on the canal combined with a "third wave" attack on pearl does is extend the run of japanese success for a matter of weeks. For a start given the abilities of the American Industry i can see it being feasable that the lock gates are replaced quicker than any one here can imagine. In fact I wouldnt put it past them to have a spare canal lying about.
There are knock on effects though? Would the effort of repairing the lock gates and pearl increase the time it takes to build up the American fleet? At the most I can see it giving the japanese an extra year, but its not a magic wand. The end results are almost exactly the same. In fact a more successful attack may just increase the rage against japan.Link to this forum: How Japan could have won the Pacific war
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Μύto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.