Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΒ  permalink

Should the Japanese invaded Pearl?

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by Duke of Northumberland (U1751006) on Monday, 5th September 2005

  HI
  
  was watching a documentary on Pearl and how it woke the sleeping giant. Should ordered an invasion of Peal?
  
  I think yes
  
  1. Had a real surprise in the attack and could have inflicted maximum damage without to much on Japans side.
  2 Captured some real key people in the attack and help in key strategies.
  3. Opened the door for direct attack in the US?
  
  
  Any thoughts
  
  

  Link to this forum: Should the Japanese invaded Pearl?

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by _A_J_A_ (U1908577) on Monday, 5th September 2005

  No, I don't.
  
  The key to the japanese strike was speed and surprise. They had meticulously planned their attack to silence any western threat to their plans in the east, yet if they suddenly changed their massive and risky plan(to get in and out, even IF they destroyed the US Pacific fleet totally, which they didn't) to invade Pearl, it would be disastrous to wait for the sleeping giant to send reinforcements.
  
  
  
  

  Link to this forum: Should the Japanese invaded Pearl?

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by Duke of Northumberland (U1751006) on Tuesday, 6th September 2005

  Taking out Pearl for good would have really hampered the US. Instead to their credit they had it up and running within a few months. So an invasion to wipe peal of the so called map would have been much better?
  I am of the opinion that if you attack something you must make sure that it can't be used against you.
  
  
  
  

  Link to this forum: Should the Japanese invaded Pearl?

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Ninja-Badger (U1689794) on Tuesday, 6th September 2005

  I must admit I'd never really thought about this.
  
  A follow up attack by paratroops to seize and destroy key installations would, as you say, ensure that maximum damage would be caused, and time involved in particular in rounding up the scattered infantry could have caused havoc on the islands for days.
  
  To remove the repair/resupply facilities at Pearl would have delayed America's response further, but can't see it having any impact ont he war in the long run.

  Link to this forum: Should the Japanese invaded Pearl?

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by Duke of Northumberland (U1751006) on Tuesday, 6th September 2005

  In terms of the battle it was an outright victory for the japanese, strategically it was about as good as the little french guys invasion of russia.
  
  What Im trying to get is if Yamamoto had decided to take the island, would it not put the US on the back foot? bear in mind they would have lost there pacfic fleet? therefore they would be open to attack eg battleships etc para drops inside US? also taking the Island and reinforcing it would have been much more difficult for the US to take back. How could they take it back with no fleet?

  Link to this forum: Should the Japanese invaded Pearl?

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231725) on Tuesday, 6th September 2005

  IMO Oahu could have been taken with relative ease had Nagumo brought an invasion fleet with him and followed up the Pearl Harbour attack with landings. However, once the Carrier Strike Force had returned to home waters and the US had been awakened to the danger, it was too late. One gets the feeling that the Japanese were never really clear as to exactly what they wanted to do militarily, and the conflict between the army and navy kept goals awfully confused.
  
  Yamamoto attempted to invade Midway in June of '42 as we all know, and even if he'd been successful, it was too late at that point to invade the Hawaiian islands. US resources had swung into action and the islands had been thoroughly fortified. Add to that the fact that the Japanese supply lines would have been impossibly long and I think the danger of a Hawaiian invasion was past.

  Link to this forum: Should the Japanese invaded Pearl?

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by Gilgamesh of Uruk (U211168) on Wednesday, 7th September 2005

  Hawaii is a goodly distance from the Japanese home islands. I doubt if it could have been nourished even if taken, and diverting the invasion fleet there might have led to American forces being sent to assist on the SE Asian mainland. Singapore in Allied hands would have complicated the Japanese task almost unbearably. Hawaii is also too far from the US Mainland to pose any immediate threat, unless the Pacific Fleets carriers had been caught in the first attack.

  Link to this forum: Should the Japanese invaded Pearl?

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by steveP (U1775134) on Monday, 12th September 2005

  Duke
  
  The Japanese did a lot of damage but it wasn't an overwhelming victory. The fact they didn't catch the US carriers was not only significant later, at Coral Sea and Midway. Because he didn't know where they were the Japanese commander cancelled the 3rd wave strike that might have done more damage.
  
  You mention a para landing but even if the Japanese had a sizeable force where could it have come from? Hawaii is way beyond the reach of Japanese land based a/c. Also it was a major fleet base, so although the Japanese attack did a lot of damage there would have been forces left on the island to defend it against any Japanese landings. Shipping forces in would also have been very difficult. Not only were the Japanese very short on force [the vast bulk tied up in China and Manchuria] and shipping. Even more importantly such ships would have imperilled the entire operation, which depended on both secrecy and moving rapidly.
  
  Even if the Japanese had gained a foothold then it would have been very difficult to supply them. Even with the crap US torpedoes Japanese forces would have faced a problem every bit as bad as they saw in the Solomon’s, with the US having much better logistics.
  
  Furthermore, which most people think of Pearl Harbour when they consider the Japanese attacks don't forget that was a tactical rather than a strategic target. That is the aim was to nullify the US fleet while the Dutch Indies, Malaya and Burma were occupied, further isolating China and gaining the raw materials their empire needed. They could not afford to take their eyes off the main targets in the south and hence that is where, other than their initial carrier strike, the bulk of their efforts went.
  
  As such I don't think any landing in Hawaii would have been practical, or wise for the Japanese. [Or rather even more disastrous than what they did historically]. Possibly a 3rd strike could have been organised as initially planned. Have heard differing opinions as to how significant destroying the fuel stocks and repair facilities would have been or how practical.
  
  In the longer term it wouldn’t have made much difference as an enraged US would have crushed Japan after any strike on Pearl, no matter what else had happened, excepting possibly a German victory in Europe drawing off US strength.
  
  Steve
  

  Link to this forum: Should the Japanese invaded Pearl?

  Report message8

Back to top