Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Pearl Harbor's Carriers
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Mark (U1347077) on Wednesday, 20th August 2008
Had the US carriers been caught at Pearl Harbor, would it have had any great effect on the long term course of the war? By 1945 the US had overwhelming naval superiority, including dozens of carriers.
-
Message 2
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Wednesday, 20th August 2008
Interesting question.
It could have made it much more difficult for Roosevelt to sell the 'Europe first' policy to the American Congress and people.
The Arcadia Conference (where 'Europe first' was agreed) took place 3 weeks after Pearl Harbor. If Hawaii, Alaska and California etc had all been fully exposed at that time to Japanese naval air power then Roosevelt's discussions with Churchill would likely have been quite different. -
Message 3
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Wednesday, 20th August 2008
i dont do conspiracy theories but here - hey!!
st -
Message 4
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Wednesday, 20th August 2008
Conversely, it could strengthen the "Europe First" strategy, because of the need to replace the carriers before engaging in any counter-action. So, no offensive action in the Pacific before 1943, and possibly the loss of Midway.
Japan eventually defeated, of course. Roosevelt loses the '44 election?
Other possibilities:
- the RN's carriers get sent to the Pacific (as HMS Victorious was at the end of '42).
- the Japanese get cocky and do invade Australia. The resultant overstretch causing them to collapse much sooner. But all Australians (not just wollemi) never forgive the Brits, and Australia becomes a republic and leaves the Commonwealth in 1947. -
Message 5
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Thursday, 21st August 2008
I really doubt if the Japanese would have attempted to invade Australia. Their army was just not big enough. Australia's an enormous island continent and the whole interior is dry desert where a dozen divisions could easily get trapped and lost. I think the Japanese would be far more likely to build their airstrips on Guadalcanal then take New Guinea, New Caledonia and possibly Samoa, the object being to effectively isolate both Australia and New Zealand from pretty much the rest of the world. Certainly Britain could not help them, and it would be very hard indeed for the US to do so. I believe that would have pretty well wrapped up their South Pacific ambitions.
At that point, I believe they'd have begun to fortify their new conquests and firmly establish their military and political holds on them. Establishing their defence lines and making preparations to hold on to their island empire would have been mainly up to the navy.
You have to remember that the Japanese army didn't want to fight in the Pacific in he first place, and they were already heavily engaged in China and Burma. Also had to retain troops in the Solomons, Malaya, New Guinea and all their other outposts. The Japanese army wasn't enormous. It would go only so far.
Lacking The two lands down under as staging areas, the breaking up of Japan's Empire would have been a great deal more difficult. Probably it would lengthen the war by about 2 years and made it a lot harder to knock the Japanese off of those islands, but it would have been done. There was no way the Japanese could have won the Pacific War without active and vigorous participation of the Germans, and Hitler was too interested in the Soviet Union to see the possibilities that existed in Suez and the Middle Eastern Oil fields -
Message 6
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Friday, 22nd August 2008
Just one more thing: an important consideration regarding the Japanese conquests is that while they succeeded in obtaining all the raw materials they needed for their war machine, the areas they conquered didn't feature any modern industry, nor were the newly-conquered peoples knowledgeable in operation of sophisticated machinery. Germany obtained the Czech and French industrial complexes and factories when they took those countries, and really needed both. The islands and areas the Japanese took offered no such support. Their ability to provide their military with materiel and supplies was entirely dependent on what they could produce in their home islands, and it wasn't nearly enough. Not only were their factories rather primitive compared to America's, they also bled their industries of competent workers by hauling most of the able-bodied men into their military forces.
-
Message 7
Posted by Triceratops (U3420301) on Friday, 22nd August 2008
It should be remembered that only Lexington and Enterprise were stationed at Pearl.
Saratoga was in San Diego,Ranger,Yorktown,Wasp and Hornet were in the Atlantic.
No matter how successful the Japanese attack was, the US Navy would still have five carriers left. -
Message 8
Posted by merlin (U10448262) on Sunday, 24th August 2008
The expectation from the Japanese, was that if they had destroyed the Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor the US would have accepted Japanese control of the Western Pacific - wrong!
As has been said by others, the US had other Carriers in the Atlantic that could be transfered (indeed many ships of the Pacific Fleet had been re-inforcing the Atlantic Fleet prior to the attack).
They may not be a Midway - it was a battle to force the US to defend the Island and then defeat the US Fleet (again). More likely to isolate Australia & NZ, but so what - defended islands will be by-passed, just like OTL, US Fleet carriers will be built in numbers just like OTL!
Result - just like OTL, maybe a few months difference, maybe it is more US Navy led rather less of MacArthur in the Phillipines. -
Message 9
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Monday, 25th August 2008
an interesting line, to which I will add this. If the carriers had been there, They would have been attacked. So which ships would have survived in their place.
G F -
Message 10
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Monday, 25th August 2008
The carriers' absence aside, the Japanese neglect to bomb the giant above-ground fuel tanks parked right next to the harbor determined both the immediate and the ultimate course of the war.
-
Message 11
Posted by Philip25 (U11566626) on Monday, 25th August 2008
One of the great myths of WWII is the fact that the Japanese did not "finish the job" at Pearl Harbor.
Whether they had caught the US carriers in the harbour, or caused more destruction, they could not in the end have won the war.
Yamamoto himself recognised that, in his remark about waking a sleeping lion/dragon.
Unless the US itself "gave in - i.e. was so isolationist, overawed (rather like France in 1940) or supine that it determined NOT to fight back, Japan was doomed over time. The mathematics of size, resources and (to an extent) system of government saw to that.
Phil -
Message 12
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Monday, 25th August 2008
Philip25: Exactly (note post 6). Unlike Germany, there was no way the Japanese could have won that war. Germany probably could have forced the British to sue for peace had they taken Suez and the Middle Eastern oil fields. Germany had the production potential and the creativity to produce everything the military machine needed, and many of their designs were better than anyone else's.
But the Japanese, even had they sunk the carriers, wrecked the drydock facilities, and destroyed the oil reserves at Pearl, they would never have forced the US into a negotiated peace. Their merchant marine was inadequate for the military needs, let alone the civilian population, and they had no way to increase those bottoms without sacrificing warship production. They simply lacked the production cap'y to fight an all-out war with a country like the US.
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 Β to 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.