PDA

View Full Version : Which was the biggest naval fight



B-29superfort
04-12-2004, 04:20 PM

B-29superfort
04-12-2004, 04:20 PM

Tully__
04-12-2004, 04:32 PM
I'm not much of a naval buff, but wasn't the Coral Sea battle fairly pivotal?

=================================================


http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/sig.jpg

IL2 Forums Moderator
Forum Terms of Use (http://www.ubi.com/US/Info/TermsOfUse.htm)

Salut
Tully

Chuck_Older
04-12-2004, 04:49 PM
Guadalcanal? Wake (only ray of hope in what, '42?)

I dunno, I haven't read up on the Pacific for a couple years

*****************************
Get your car outta that gear ~ Clash

Giganoni
04-12-2004, 07:11 PM
Hmm, your subject and then your question are two different things. In answer to your subject line question, Letye Gulf was the biggest naval engagment in wwII by surface ships. The Marianas was the biggest carrier engagement. I would say turning points in the war are Guadalcanal, Midway..not really Coral Sea, perhaps Tarawa. The most important battle in the late war would ,for me, have to be Letye Gulf. The Japanese would have surely have won that engagement had they not gotten cautious in the end.

Cage50
04-12-2004, 07:12 PM
As far as most crucial/pivotal...well there were quite a few battles which were very imporatant, and could have changed and did change the tides of war.
I chose Midway in the poll, because I think it was the first Victory for the US in which the Japanese Navy had to shift into a Defensive Campaign versus there offensive campaign, as well as putting the US into an offensive campaign. If I remember correctly this battle also helped in equally the fleets, from Japan being significantly larger before Midway.
I think Leyte Gulf was the largest/biggest naval battle.

heywooood
04-12-2004, 07:27 PM
I always thought that Midway was regarded as THE pivotal battle that turned the tide, but then someone else i spoke to who is quite a bit older than me http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif.said that the Dolittle raid as a single act of war did more to change the course and eventual outcome of the war than any battle. The Japanese were stunned by it - even as very high ranking American commanders considered it a token gesture and only minimally effective.
It had the effect of making their navy quite jumpy and indecisive and overly conservative with their forces.

JG7_Rall
04-12-2004, 07:48 PM
The Doolittle raid offered no real tactical advantage for the US but the strategic importance of it was immense...so was the moral boost for the US at the time. It turned the tide of US moral perhaps but really did very little in reality.

My vote goes to Midway, was truly the turning point in the Pacific from my standpoint and the surge to Japan really began there. Coral Sea was quite large as well but I think Midway still outclasses is as to importance.

S!

Hutch

"Son, never ask a man if he is a fighter pilot. If he is, he'll let you know. If he isn't, don't embarrass him."
Badges!? We don't needs no stinkin' badges!

sugaki
04-12-2004, 08:00 PM
Heywood - Doolittle raid huh? Interesting.

I'd havta disagree though. It definitely had a HUGE impact on the Japanese command, but as for how conservative they were, they were always conservative.

Take Chiuchi Nagumo, who should've launched a third strike to attack more of Pearl Harbor's infrastructure (dry docks, fuel dumps, sub pens), but didn't out of fear of a counterattack. Total screw up.

Take Mikawa's cruiser/destroyer forces, which had a wide-open opportunity to destroy US transports at Guadacanal but didn't.

Conservatism was a jutting issue with IJN commanders, regardless of the Doolittle raid. So not sure it had any impact on how bold commanders were in tactics.

But you do bring up a great point; Doolittle was the main reason why the IJN concocted the battle of Midway. They were so jarred by the attack that they decided to inflict a fatal wound to the US navy, which as history shows, failed miserably.

Coral Sea was significant for the US because it was the first time the Japanese expansion into the South Pacific was halted; sure, the US lost Lady Lex while IJN lost only the CVL Shoho, but the Japanese plans of expansion into Port Moresby were halted, marking a strategic victory for the US (though tactically they had a loss).

I still think Midway had the biggest impact though, because they lost the bulk of their carrier fleet, and never recovered from that loss. Not only did they lose the carriers but planes as well as experienced airmen. Given the limited production capacities of Japan at that time, losing a huge chunk of planes was a serious setback -- ultimately, it forced them to resort to using carriers like the Zuikaku as bait in a sad attempt to try to bring battles to battleships.

Leyte Gulf and Marianas were the largest in terms of scale of battles, but by then, Japan's loss was already in sight -- no planes, almost no experienced pilots, inferior technology, and 20+ Essex class carriers and tons more escort carriers that made the IJN powerless to US airpower. By then the scales were tipped heavily against Japan.

BSS_CUDA
04-12-2004, 08:06 PM
The Dolittle was significant in the fact that, even tho the damage was very minimal it forced the Japanese to keep parts of its fleet and aircorp close to home to defend it from additional attacks.
Midway was pivitol in the fact that the IJN lost four top line carriers and the very best of its pilots and was never able to recover.
The Marianas was not so much a significant battle as a loss of aircraft and personel
I believe that we shot down over 400 Japanese aircraft at Truk.
Leyte gulf was by far the largest naval engagement of the war how ever it was not just 1 battle but a series of battles from Surigao straits to Savo island and Leyte gulf.
at Surigao Straits the Japanese must have thought theye were seeing Ghost ships as there were 6 US battlewagons there Including the Tennessee, Maryland, California, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania. all Pearl Harbor surviors the 6th BB was the Mississippi
without question the Pivitol engagement for the US pacific fleet during WW2 was Midway, as Yamamoto predicted 6 months of Victories in the war, Midway (June 6, 1942) was 1 day short of 6 months. after Midway Japan was on the defensive never recovering

*****************************
BSS_CUDA
Co-Founder of my family
Black Sheep Tactical Officer

http://img42.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/CUDA_.jpg

That was some of the best flying I've seen yet! right up to the part where you got killed.
you NEVER NEVER leave your wingman.

Jester : TopGun

heywooood
04-12-2004, 08:07 PM
You are right of course, sugaki.. we were talking in relative terms - as in "you thought they were conservative before the raid?" evryone agrees they tightened up considerably after Dolittles party.


I agree - the Japanese always take the long view - and so are inherently more likely to

conserve forces and resources ... for later.

Ever played their board game "GO"?...
.. no instant gratification for this culture.

Look how they built up their automobile mfg. industry.. always making long term decisions and setting long term goals .. Always planning and staying committed to the plan.

heywooood
04-12-2004, 08:16 PM
Bss cuda - And why were the Japanese so indecisive at Midway? Because Dolittle really screwed them up. They wanted those carriers so badly - that they couldn't even Agree on the Midway invasion ..they were totally tossed between what was the primary objective!

Midway or the US carriers

Nice sig BtW

This from a culture so careful to plan and so completely devoted to planning.. cant let any opportunity to get our carriers go by.. cant have another Dolittle raid.

sugaki
04-12-2004, 08:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Because Dolittle really screwed them up. They wanted those carriers so badly - that they couldn't even Agree on the Midway invasion ..they were totally tossed between what was the primary objective! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The screwup between the indecisiveness of invading Midway and attacking the Carrier fleet was mostly due to Chiuchi Nagumo's incompetence IMHO.

Nagumo didn't account for the possibility that the US fleet could be in range and already armed bombs. This couldn't be helped cus' reconnaisance didn't pick up the US fleet, and they didn't expect the US to crack Japan's "AF" midway code.

His screwup though was changing his mind to switch to torpedoes, when all the bombs were already loaded. If he spotted them, he should've assumed that the enemy already did as well, and launched the Kates with bombs immediately. Instead, SBD's turned the carriers into burning hulks with all the bombs onboard.

I attribute the debacle of Midway solely on Nagumo http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I'm sure the brass did too, as he was reassigned to lead the Saipan airbase, ultimately dying there.

Midway was a good plan, carried out by an incompetent commander. Doubt Midway would've occured if it was Minoru Genda leading the attack. Nagumo was an old-timer who previously expressed his skepticism of the effectiveness of aircraft carriers over battleships, and hence was overly timid with using them.

DONB3397
04-12-2004, 10:20 PM
All of these battles were important, of course, but most historians seem to believe Midway changed the "course of the war." I've read several articles and parts of books on the objectives, methods and miscues for the IJN. Lots of "if only..." speculation.

But whatever the causes or foulups, the IJN lost four front line carriers and 200 highly skilled pilots who couldn't be replaced.

Luthier makes the point that the Japanese believed themselves to be invincible in sea battles, and that this battle was tailor-made for their objectives -- defeating the enemy in a single, large event.

Oooops!

http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/3fe77b7e_1812a/bc/Images/Sig---1.jpg?BCMCkdABH1uSLZQo
There is no 'way' of winning;
There is only Winning!

luthier1
04-12-2004, 10:29 PM
Midway was indeed the turning point. This was THE last step in the Japanese plan. After an overwhelming victory at Midway they would have reached all their objectives and had the most favorable position for their demands.

They understood pretty well that they just could not continue advancing, and had absolutely no chance to invade the US. They would most likely call for peace negotiations and ask that US let them do whatever they want in the Pacific.

It's quite an interesting point to discuss what the US response to that would have been, with no carriers in the Pacific and the Japanese so clearly dominating air and sea.

http://www.il2center.com/PF.jpg

Gunner_361st
04-12-2004, 10:38 PM
I agree. Midway was truly an amazing battle where serious physical and psychological damage was done to the IJN.

Major Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1080.jpg

WUAF_Badsight
04-12-2004, 10:45 PM
wasnt their whole point just to conquer asia

wasnt it that USA got attacked at Pearl Harbour simply to take away their main threat

wasnt it that USA was never the target ?

& that once they held the pacific they would have sued for a treaty from USA just as Hitler wanted from England so he could solidfy Fortress Europe ?

Weather_Man
04-12-2004, 10:57 PM
It would seem to me that Pearl Harbor was the most crucial--as in, had the most impact on events to follow. Without it, there perhaps would have been no other battles.

DONB3397
04-12-2004, 11:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
wasnt their whole point just to conquer asia

wasnt it that USA got attacked at Pearl Harbour simply to take away their main threat

wasnt it that USA was never the target? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Correct. Japan is an island without natural resources -- no oil, metals, rubber, etc. They wanted/needed those available in the Phillipines, China, Burma and other parts of the Pacific Rim to make themselves a stand-alone economic center of commerce. They took most of China. That left the U.S. and Britain as obstacles.

The strategy, documented after the war, was to drive out the West, establish a defendable perimeter with their regional naval superiority (after destroying U.S. and Britain Pacific fleets), and be the principal power in the Eastern hemisphere.

From the U.S., they expected to take the Phillipines, Wake, and Midway (perhaps, Hawaii). But they never intended to occupy the U.S. in, say, the way Germany intended to conquer Russia.

In six months, as Luthier says, they had achieved 90% of the objectives. Midway was the last picket for the Pacific perimeter (assuming they destroyed or captured the last American carriers). Then they'd offer peace. Who was going to argue?

That's why Midway was so important; with the loss of the IJN carriers and the failure to take the island, the Empire had to go to "Plan B" -- hang on until the U.S. and Britain quit.

Pentallion
04-12-2004, 11:40 PM
Roosevelt would have never accepted peace. There was too much money to be made on war.

http://www.simops.com/249th/sigs/Wildcard.jpg

luthier1
04-12-2004, 11:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pentallion:
Roosevelt would have never accepted peace. There was too much money to be made on war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Desperate times call for desperate measures. US suffered one humiliating defeat after the other all until Midway. If US Navy lost all their carriers at Midway, and Midway itself was taken over, Roosevelt would have no more cards left to play. Everything would be left completely exposed, with Japan having the initiative to strike any target they wanted at will without serious retribution.

I really doubt the US would flat out decline to enter negotiations after a loss at Midway.


P.S. I really detest the comment about money being made on war. Politicians don't fight wars for money. This is especially not true when it comes to the US involvement in WWII.

http://www.il2center.com/PF.jpg

clint-ruin
04-13-2004, 12:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by luthier1:
P.S. I really detest the comment about money being made on war. Politicians don't fight wars for money. This is especially not true when it comes to the US involvement in WWII.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5407.htm

http://www.raintaxi.com/online/2003winter/war.shtml

http://www.corporatemofo.com/stories/030928warracket.htm

Thread is probably very shortly to head right down the toilet but those are worth a look anyhow. I completely agree that it was right for the US to come down to fight against the fascists, but it's interesting to note how close the establishment came to siding with them instead.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

04-13-2004, 12:45 AM
Its an interesting what if isnt it!
Lets assume for a minute Total Victory at Midway for the Japanese with out losing a Carrier, and the US lost all of theirs.

Alright so the Japanese by using Carrier Air Power, can halt all ship building activity on the West Coast of the US.
Its still no gaurentee the US would have negociated Peace with Japan.
Not after pearl harbour, and US submarines would have made it too dangerouse for Japanese Carriers to close the Ports on the East Coast.

So the War probably would have continued for a bit longer say 6 months ?

Japan entered a War she was never going to Win, and had no choice anyway, Japans Oil was cut off, so she took it back by force.
Japan only had about 3% of Americas industrial capability, there was never any way Japan could compete with that in War Fare.

Crikey the American industrial capability was just starting to warm up when the War ended!

luthier1
04-13-2004, 12:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
I completely agree that it was right for the US to come down to fight against the fascists, but it's interesting to note how close the establishment came to siding with them instead.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.il2center.com/tinfoilhat.jpg

http://www.il2center.com/PF.jpg

clint-ruin
04-13-2004, 02:31 AM
Should I paste a little tinfoil party hat onto Ikes head or shall we just agree to disagree on the historical influence of arms dealers on warfare? :&gt;

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Ankanor
04-13-2004, 03:14 AM
Midway.

O, how I want to hold you,
To feel your breath
And hear your laughter in my ears.
To look into your eyes
And see myself in there.
Caress you with my lips.
To hold your hands in mine
And find the hidden smile in your dimple
That makes you irresistible
And stops the breathing in my chest.
To be with you when you are weeping,
To wipe away the tears and take away the sorrow.
To watch you while you are sleeping
Like there is no tomorrow.

And with a tender kiss to wake you up.

Essen,23.02.2004 20:53

Blackdog5555
04-13-2004, 04:04 AM
Give me a break you guys (or gals). Dont you watch the History Channel? Remember Charton Heston in Midway? The Japanese "as we call them now" bet their whole navy on the invasion of Midway. They lost. The greatest naval/pacific battle in history in which no two enemy ships ever saw each other. MIDWAY. The Marianna Turkey shoot was a blast but not critical. go to Blockbuster and rent Midway.

Tully__
04-13-2004, 04:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Give me a break you guys (or gals). Dont you watch the History Channel? Remember Charton Heston in Midway? The Japanese "as we call them now" bet their whole navy on the invasion of Midway. They lost. The greatest naval/pacific battle in history in which no two enemy ships ever saw each other. MIDWAY. The Marianna Turkey shoot was a blast but not critical. go to Blockbuster and rent Midway.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately both Hollywood and the History channel have a poor record for getting some of the finer historical details correct. Sometimes the facts get in the way of a good story and the story wins.

By Hollywood standards Midway was pretty good though http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

=================================================


http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/sig.jpg

IL2 Forums Moderator
Forum Terms of Use (http://www.ubi.com/US/Info/TermsOfUse.htm)

Salut
Tully

PF_Talus
04-13-2004, 06:37 AM
Making money off of war is nothing new. Spanish American war was basically trumped up by William R. Hearst to sell some papers. It's been proven that the loss of the Maine was due to an accident.


http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/Talus/Il-2_001.jpg

Bellicause
04-13-2004, 09:50 AM
Midway is definitively the turning point of WWII in pacific theater as Stalingrad is the one in ETO. It's my point of wiew. Pearl Harbor is very important also as it brought U.S.A. into war.

Capt._Tenneal
04-13-2004, 10:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sugaki:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Because Dolittle really screwed them up. They wanted those carriers so badly - that they couldn't even Agree on the Midway invasion ..they were totally tossed between what was the primary objective! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The screwup between the indecisiveness of invading Midway and attacking the Carrier fleet was mostly due to Chiuchi Nagumo's incompetence IMHO.

Nagumo didn't account for the possibility that the US fleet could be in range and already armed bombs. This couldn't be helped cus' reconnaisance didn't pick up the US fleet, and they didn't expect the US to crack Japan's "AF" midway code.

His screwup though was changing his mind to switch to torpedoes, when all the bombs were already loaded. If he spotted them, he should've assumed that the enemy already did as well, and launched the Kates with bombs immediately. Instead, SBD's turned the carriers into burning hulks with all the bombs onboard.

I attribute the debacle of Midway solely on Nagumo http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I'm sure the brass did too, as he was reassigned to lead the Saipan airbase, ultimately dying there.

Midway was a good plan, carried out by an incompetent commander. Doubt Midway would've occured if it was Minoru Genda leading the attack. Nagumo was an old-timer who previously expressed his skepticism of the effectiveness of aircraft carriers over battleships, and hence was overly timid with using them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Genda would have been a good choice, but impractical as he was a mid-level officer (Commander rank ?) and was not in any flag capacity. An alternative choice would have been RAdm. Tamon Yamaguchi, who from what I've read of him, was of a younger generation than Nagumo and was a "carrier admiral" in the truest sense. In Midway he was the only one to conduct a successful Japanese attack -- disabling the Yorktown. He was another one of the critical losses along with the experienced pilots. If he had survived, he could have been the Japanese equivalent of Halsey or Mitscher.

heywooood
04-13-2004, 10:38 AM
That was my quote Capn T -

And the mission at Midway was altered in the final stages by Japanese high command -
Nagumo was to take Midway but.. he was ordered late in the game to strike at any US carriers immediately should the opportunity arise..
In fact it was their normal ops. to conduct routine searchplanes on a fan pattern.. but there was special emphasis on them that would not have existed without the alterations to Nagumos order of battle.. to find US carriers BEFORE the Midway attack - to neutralize their ability to interdict in the Japanese invasion once it had commenced.

uhoh7
04-13-2004, 01:08 PM
I submit that midway was the "evening point" from which time the allies chances improved. There was alot of luck involved in the midway fight.

But the turning point has to be guadalcanal and the many wild air and sea fights which surrounded it.

The sea fights ranged from midway style carrier engagements, to those hellacious point blank night fights where we lost so many crusiers and destroyers. In the struggle for that island we lost the wasp, hornet and nearly the enterpize.

the recent book by Richard Frank details all aspects of the fight very well.

uhoh7

sugaki
04-13-2004, 02:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Genda would have been a good choice, but impractical as he was a mid-level officer (Commander rank ?) and was not in any flag capacity. An alternative choice would have been RAdm. Tamon Yamaguchi, who from what I've read of him, was of a younger generation than Nagumo and was a "carrier admiral" in the truest sense. In Midway he was the only one to conduct a successful Japanese attack -- disabling the Yorktown. He was another one of the critical losses along with the experienced pilots. If he had survived, he could have been the Japanese equivalent of Halsey or Mitscher.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doh, good point. I forgot to mention that I wasn't accounting for an officer's current post -- Genda was way below the ranks to be able to lead a fleet of carriers.

Yamaguchi was IMHO one of the best carrier fleet commanders that the IJN had. He lead a small remnant of planes from the Hiryu to sink the Yorktown, a wise decision. The problem was he decided to die with his ship. After he died, you had a bunch of mediocre commanders like Ozawa. A shame.

But yeah, you gave a more realistic possibility. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Giganoni
04-14-2004, 02:43 AM
You know..America's navy personal losses at Guadalcanal are suspiciously low. Those battles at savo were pretty interesting and intense. Although maybe only a few hundred marines on the island were casualties (wounded or dead) The Navy suffered a tactical defeat at the hands of Japan's surface fleet. Fortunately for those marines the Japanese never broke through and so it was a strategic victory much like Coral Sea.

HarryVoyager
04-14-2004, 11:24 AM
Actually, it wouldn't have taken much to have ended up with the US on the side of Germany in WWI; at the time our population was prety much split on which side was right in that war.

If I recall correctly, one of the key turning points was when a US munitions factory blew up, rather spectacularly , and was attributed to German sabotage. With historical hindsight, it looks as though that explosion was an accident, most likely due to improper storage of the munitions (there were no known prime witnesses to the events), but as German sabatours had already been opperating in the US for some time, and had already launched a couple of failed attempts on that factory, they caught the blame, and tipped US public opinion towards Britain and France.

Had things gone the otehr way, we could easily have become allied with Germany during that war, leading to their victory, and radically changing the course of politics of this century.

And just for some great fun, there was serious talk of disbanding the US army after WWI ended. Had that actually happened, very few of the P- fighters would have been built. The B-17 would still have existed, as it was first built as a maratime patrol bomber, and the Navy would most likely have still had its airforce too, but it is interesting to think about how the ETO would have been, had we ended up relying on Navy fighters and bombers for most of it.

Harry Voyager

uhoh7
04-19-2004, 03:31 PM
Naval personel losses surrounding guadalcanal:

Killed: 5041
Wounded: 2953

Guadalcanal, RB Frank

Regarding the "tactical defeat" of US Naval forces.

While US loss of warships was greater than Japanese, in the end the Japanese could not support their troops on the island over water. In this respect naval operations were successful, if costly.

uhoh7

sugaki
04-19-2004, 04:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by uhoh7:
Naval personel losses surrounding guadalcanal:

Killed: 5041
Wounded: 2953

Guadalcanal, RB Frank

Regarding the "tactical defeat" of US Naval forces.

While US loss of warships was greater than Japanese, in the end the Japanese could not support their troops on the island over water. In this respect naval operations were successful, if costly.

uhoh7<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ditto. And the reason it was successful was because Mikawa didn't want to keep pushing his naval fleet into bombarding the largely undefended US convoys. A huge flub.

But Guadalcanal was both a strategic and tactical victory for the US... and a bloody one at that.

Rudee37
04-19-2004, 05:29 PM
The loss of 2 Japanese Carriers in the Coral Sea battle was pivitol to the outcome of the war. Had the carrier Shoho (which was sunk) and the Shokaku (which was heavily damaged) been available in the Midway campaign, the outcome of the Midway battle could of been different.

sugaki
04-19-2004, 05:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rudee37:
The loss of 2 Japanese Carriers in the Coral Sea battle was pivitol to the outcome of the war. Had the carrier Shoho (which was sunk) and the Shokaku (which was heavily damaged) been available in the Midway campaign, the outcome of the Midway battle could of been different.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not necessarily. The IJN failure of Midway was one of tactics, not one of strength in numbers. The IJN were already outnumbering US forces in planes anyway. Shokaku might've been sunk along with the four.

SkyChimp
04-19-2004, 06:31 PM
Midway was simply the turning point. Great intelligence, the proper use of it, and sheer luck all played a part. The Japanese lost four fleet carriers and many very good and experienced pilots. They never truly recovered.

However, Guadalcanal was pivotal as well. It was our first prepared slugfest with the Japanese and proved Marines could beat the Japanese in the type of warfare the Japanese were renowned for. There was a steep learning curve, however, which benefited the US also in the long-run.

===

I don't think an American loss at Midway would have resulted in any sort of negotiations by the US. At very worst, they would have continued to garrison Australia against invasion, but otherwise shut the theater down until they were ready to fight. A Japanese landing at Midway may have been the starting point for an invasion of the main Hawaiian islands, but it's doubtful that could have been pulled off. And a serious threat to the west coast never really existed. Most of American industry was in the east, almost all capital ships, including carriers, were built on the east coast or gulf coast. And an attack on the west coast would have made supply lines many thousands of miles long with a northern and southern flank seriously exposed to attack. And in retrospect, it was never the Japanese plane to seriously threaten the west coast. Harrassment raids sure, but no threat of invasion.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg

Nimits
04-19-2004, 09:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by luthier1:
P.S. I really detest the comment about money being made on war. Politicians don't fight wars for money. This is especially not true when it comes to the US involvement in WWII.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5407.htm

http://www.raintaxi.com/online/2003winter/war.shtml

http://www.corporatemofo.com/stories/030928warracket.htm

Thread is probably very shortly to head right down the toilet but those are worth a look anyhow. I completely agree that it was right for the US to come down to fight against the fascists, but it's interesting to note how close the establishment came to siding with them instead.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Clint, claiming that the US government entered a war just to turn a profit is ridiculous. There is zero historical evidence to back any of that.

Those links basically amount to the rantings of one disenchanted ex-Marine from te 1930s and are not worth the time I spent reading them.

FYI: In regards to the baseless accusations of a Cheney-Haliburton conspiracy, keep in mind (1) Haliburton is not actually drilling and selling the oils so much as it is rebuilding Iraq's oil industry infrastructure (Haliburton is not an oil company in the same way as Shell or Texaco), (2) Haliburton is one of only 2 or 3 companies in the world that does what it does on the scale that it does, and the other one is French (not likely that the US government is going to award a French company contracts in Iraq after they way they behaved, (3) the destruction that necessitated Haliburton's intervention was caused by Hussein's scorched earth policy.

clint-ruin
04-19-2004, 09:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nimits:
Those links basically amount to the rantings of one disenchanted ex-Marine from te 1930s and are not worth the time I spent reading them.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm.

Disenchanted ex-marine.

That would be Brigadier General Smedley Butler you're talking about?

Double MOH recipient [one in Haiti, one in Mexico] Smedley Butler?

That other guy - wassisname - Eisenhower - what the hell does an ex 5 star, supreme commander of NATO, president of the USA, know about the military industrial complex?

You're right - what was I thinking posting links to such obviously misinformed antiamericans.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

owlwatcher
04-20-2004, 11:07 AM
FYI: In regards to the baseless accusations of a Cheney-Haliburton conspiracy, keep in mind (1) Haliburton is not actually drilling and selling the oils so much as it is rebuilding Iraq's oil industry infrastructure (Haliburton is not an oil company in the same way as Shell or Texaco), (2) Haliburton is one of only 2 or 3 companies in the world that does what it does on the scale that it does, and the other one is French (not likely that the US government is going to award a French company contracts in Iraq after they way they behaved, (3) the destruction that necessitated Haliburton's intervention was caused by Hussein's scorched earth policy.[/QUOTE]

I missed that thought all this time . http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

"caused by Hussein's scorched earth policy."

Thank you

Why was this type of warfare or stlye tactic whatever. not used by the media in explaining what happened.

Blackdog5555
04-20-2004, 12:36 PM
I think the US officially entered the war after the the December 7th 1941 Pearl Harbour surprise attack. Duh, Not much money for Roosevelt there. Jeez, does anybody study history. To insinuate that the US got involved in WWII for money is an incomprehensible bonehead remark. (Not much money in the old lend lease freebees) And remember, the war in the Pacific was a designed just to keep the Japanese in check until the war in Europe ended. Also, To State that the "US Suffered one humiliating defeat after the other until Midway" doesnt jive with history. Pearl Harbour wasnt a humiliating defeat. If you walk into a tiger cage and kick a tiger in the face, did you infict a humiliating defeat on the tiger. (Remember how the war ended)Yamamoto was smart to say that all PH accomblished was to wake a sleeping giant. And Luthier1, You need to rethink your comments.

eiffel68
04-20-2004, 03:42 PM
The colonial competition between Europeans, Americans and Japanese in Asia and particularly in China in the '30s-'40s had nothing to do with national economies? No,of course.
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/images/antn45.jpg

[This message was edited by eiffel68 on Tue April 20 2004 at 02:59 PM.]

IIJG11_Spreckels
08-11-2004, 06:00 AM
Midway was the pivotal crucial battle. The loss of so many experienced pilots left Japan virtually with younger, less experienced pilots that were rushed up for duty.
The series of Naval engagements called Leyte Gulf was the capper. The largest naval engagement (men, ships and aircraft) ever fought. The IJN Combined Fleet never recovered from the losses, while the US Navy were able to replace their losses (See the book "Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors") in relatively short order.

IIJG11_Spreckels
08-11-2004, 06:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Giganoni:
You know..America's navy personal losses at Guadalcanal are suspiciously low. Those battles at savo were pretty interesting and intense. Although maybe only a few hundred marines on the island were casualties (wounded or dead) The Navy suffered a tactical defeat at the hands of Japan's surface fleet. Fortunately for those marines the Japanese never broke through and so it was a strategic victory much like Coral Sea.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where did you get your information about losses ? I recommend you do some reading.

US Naval Losses
Guadalcanal Campaign

Killed/Wounded
Amphibious Phase 60/ 106
Battle of Savo Island 1,077/ 700
Battle of Eastern Solomons 83/ 90
Other losses (August 42) 297/ 42
Wasp 173/ 175
Other losses (Sep 42) 98/ 97
Battle of C. Esperance 163/ 125
Battle of Santa Cruz 262/ 314
Other losses (Oct 42) 270/ 115
Naval Battle (Guad Part 1) 1,463/ 565
Naval Battle (Guad Part 2) 242/ 142
Other losses (Nov 42) 4/ 18
Battle Tassafaronga 395/ 153
Other losses (Dec 42) 3/ 6
Battle of Rennell Island 85/ 64
Jan 43 losses (RNZN) 7/ 7
Feb 43 losses 170/ 47
Aviation losses (otherwise) 87/ 27
Pers. on Guadalcanal 90/ 132

Grand Total naval losses 5,041/ 2,953

This does not include US Marine and US Army Losses

Total US casualities - Ground (deaths only)
Guadalcanal- Aug 42-Feb 43......1504 or 6.6% of total involved

Recommend you visit US Navy and Marine Corps Personnel Casualties in World War II (http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq11-1.htm)

[This message was edited by IIJG11_Spreckels on Wed August 11 2004 at 06:06 AM.]

[This message was edited by IIJG11_Spreckels on Wed August 11 2004 at 06:07 AM.]

Sakai9745
08-11-2004, 08:04 AM
I've personally felt that Japan lost the war at Pearl. This is for two reasons:

1. They missed the US carriers... I believe Enterprise would've been there had she not been held up by heavy seas.

2. Little to no concentration on the base's support facilities (oil tank fields, repair facilities), which bit them in the nub on many an occasion.

This is not to suggest that the US would've loss, but the war in the PTO would've changed quite dramatically had the US been left without a couple more flattops to do battle with, or had they had to rely on west coast facilities instead of Hawaii.

Then again, maybe it wouldn't have made a difference... what the heck do I know? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Al - SF, Calif

"Defense Dept regrets to inform you that your sons are dead cause they were stupid."

Tater-SW-
08-11-2004, 08:10 AM
Midway was important, but it wasn't the turning point in many ways. A US loss at Midway would have delayed the end of the war, but there is zero chance the US would have negotiated with Japan as they wished. Zero. It has nothing to do with money, it has to do with human nature. The populace at large in the US was pissed---not making them pay for Pearl would have been political suicide for FDR. As such, I'd call Pearl the most important (of the battles on the list, otherwise Guadalcanal). Why Pearl? Because the poor timing of the Japanese plan ended ANY chance of the their desired war plan happening, regardless of how well they did. They required a short war, a sneak attack of that magnitude in general would rile us up, miscuing the war declaration was the nail in the coffin. Add that Pearl should have been attacked more (notably the bunker oil storage) and it was all over December 7, they just didn't know it yet.

It's interesting to note (even as stated in this thread) that many major fights are characterized by bold and interesting Japanese planning---followed by timidity in executing the plan, or better put in rolling with the punches (inflexibility). Anything off-plan seems to have resulted in total loss of initiative for the Japanese. Coral Sea disrupted attacks on Port Moresby---so much for New Guinea, the rest of that campaign would be characterized by piecemeal commitment of Japanese forces getting torn apart. Guadalcanal: bold surface strike (Battle of Savo Island), turn tail without attacking the only ships that mattered, the AKs. It goes on and on like this the entire war, zero ability to take a punch, then CHANGE THE PLAN. Plans don't last long in combat, the inability to cope with that is crippling.

tater

Loki-PF
08-11-2004, 08:58 AM
Sakai,

You have touched on a very interesting topic, one that I have put a great deal of thought into..... What if Nagumo hadn't lost his nerve at Pearl and sent in the third wave? What if the IJN had been succesfull in their intent to not only cripple the US Pacific fleet but ALSO render Pearl innefective as our primary Pacific staging base?

If all the Oil storage facilities and support infrastructure was gone from Pearl, where would the remnants of the Pacific fleet be stationed? San Diego? Would the US have (rightfully) felt more threatened from the Pacific front and put more resourcess into that, thus taking away from the ETO or the contributions to ETO allies via lend lease? If this happened, then what happens to the course of the war in the ETO? Does it lengthen it by months/years? Does this extension give Germany a chance to develop their own A-Bomb? Keep in mind, they have a capable delivery platform already...

I find this scenario quite fascinating to think about. As they say, "For want of a nail..."

Tater-SW-
08-11-2004, 09:27 AM
The largest implications are for the ETO since the US might have switched to a "Japan first" policy. As for a German bomb, it was DOA, they had no chance of a bomb during the course of the war the way they were going. That's what they get for alienating (or just plain murdering) some of their best scientists.

tater

Sakai9745
08-11-2004, 01:31 PM
Heya Loki. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I too have given this a lot of thought as well. You read about the miraculous 72-hour repair job of the Yorktown that enabled her to be present at Midway. Then there's the pictures of the herculean salvages of the sunken battlewagons, many of which were able to return the favor to Japanese military forces (I do so love the irony of 5 or 6 of the participating BBs involved in the last BB vs BB battle being Pearl Harbor survivors!). Bringing it down to the bare essentials, the supply lines get a whole lot further without Pearl as a pitstop.

Was it Fuchida who stongly argued for a third strike (I don't know for sure, so I won't guess)? I so have to wonder how things would've turned out like had that thrid strike launched.

Cheers,

Al - SF, Calif

"Defense Dept regrets to inform you that your sons are dead cause they were stupid."

aminx
08-11-2004, 02:31 PM
absolutely right,maybe the only other alternative would be to gain time while the rebuild was going on and play all sorts of tricks and diplomacy until you can go out again.maybe one year.
aminx

http://img25.photobucket.com/albums/v76/aminx/113.jpg

Nimits
08-11-2004, 05:05 PM
The best plan for the Japanese would have been to limit their attacks to the Dutch East Indies (the US did not have any resources they wanted, and the Japanese could probably have kept on going without Malaya or Burma). Britain might have been drawn in by its alliance with the Dutch in Europe (giving the Japanese a chance to capture Malaya then). However, when (or if) the US entered the war, its desire and will to prosecute the fight would have been considerably less than was historically the case.

Nimits
08-11-2004, 05:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nimits:
Those links basically amount to the rantings of one disenchanted ex-Marine from te 1930s and are not worth the time I spent reading them.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm.

Disenchanted ex-marine.

That would be Brigadier General Smedley Butler you're talking about?

Double MOH recipient [one in Haiti, one in Mexico] Smedley Butler?

That other guy - wassisname - Eisenhower - what the hell does an ex 5 star, supreme commander of NATO, president of the USA, know about the military industrial complex?

You're right - what was I thinking posting links to such obviously misinformed antiamericans.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Medals mean he was brave, perhaps a good combat leader; they don't mean that he knows or understands politics or economics, nor do they give him carte blanche to claim anything wants and have it unquestionably accepted as the truth. Some wackos are garbed in long hair and bell bottoms carrying anti-war signs, others for a time at least, unfortunately, in the uniform of the armed services. (Some even wear both).

Eisenhowers's comments have nothing to do with WWII, nor has his warning any real merit when viewed in the light of history. Wars (and this includes WWI and OIF) are fought for geo-political or moral reasons, not at the behest of industry leaders.

SkyChimp
08-11-2004, 06:55 PM
I think the Battle of Midway was the "end of the beginning." I think the Battle for Guadalcanal was the "beginning of the end." (credit to Churchill)

Midway laid to rest any plan the Japanese may have had to move on Hawaii or further east. In addition, the Japanese lost four fleet carriers and hundreds of irreplacable pilots. However, Midway was not the end of Japanese expansionism in the Pacific. Some of the troops intended to occupy Midway ended up on Guadalcanal. Some attempted an invasion at Milne Bay (and were virtually pushed back into the sea). Of course, the Japanese move on Port Moresby took place after Midway. Midway was a fantastic naval defeat for the Japanese. But it was not decisive in stopping Japanese expansion - which continued (attempted)- but it did deal a critical blow to the Japenese fleet, and the quality of the pilots of the Japanese Naval air arm were never the same.

Guadacanal, however, did spell doom for Japanese southward expansion, and was the first real US offensive of the war in the Pacific. The defeat of the Japanese at Guadacanal left the US with strategically important airbases from which the battles in the southwest Pacific were fought and won. It was all down-hill for the Japanese from there.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/signature.jpg

Jason Bourne
08-11-2004, 06:56 PM
well, back OnT, i would have to say that you needed to add the battle of the surigao (sp) straights, last big gun battle to happen.

initjust
08-11-2004, 08:04 PM
This is an interesting discussion.

I pesonally believe that Coral Sea was a much bigger factor than is commonly thought.

IF the Japanese had been able to take Port Morseby they would have been in a very good position to threaten Australia. This would have drastically changed the focus of the Allied war effort in the PTO.

In fact IF Port Morseby had fallen to the Japanese the battle at Midway might not have happened because the focus of the entire ALlied effort would have been shifter to Australia.

Coral Sea was a tactical defeat for the Allies AND the Japanese still might have been able to take Morseby IF they had pressed forward and not withdrawn but they had no idea how thin the defenses were.

For me Coral Sea was a very crucial battle. Coral Sea and Midway were both major events in determining the course of the war.

For me they are almost equally important.

However, I give a slightly greater importance to Coral Sea simply because I really believe that if Coral Sea had turned out differently Midway would not have happened.

Of course my take on all of this is as full of speculation and conjecture as all the rest of the opinions expressed here but it is an interesting topic.

Tater-SW-
08-11-2004, 08:38 PM
I agree about the Coral Sea, it was typical, too. The plan went slightly south, and the IJN turned tail and ran for home. Also, they constantly split their forces up. If the BBs had been with the CVs at Midway, for example, they would have added a weight of AAA, a CVL, and possibly the ability to close for a surface engagement. Putting the BBs a little in FRONT of CVs (well under CAP from CVs) makes some amount of sense, putting them behind them is absurd. The Japanese won for 6 months, and even that was at some cost (Singapore and the Philipines were not walks in the park). Basically, if the Japanese were faced with any kind of organized resistance they didn't do so well.

tater

Woodrow79
08-12-2004, 01:48 AM
I think Midway was the end of all Japanese desires during WW2. Not only the incredible loss of 4 front line carriers, but all of their top-notch pilots as well.

In addition, this was the Japanese' first naval loss in 350 years. It was nothing short of a 10.0 earthquake for them militarily. It was as devastating a defeat as could be imagined.

Add in the cultural and symbolic significance. The 4 carriers took part in the attack on Pearl Harbor, and now the very people they had attacked had sent those carriers to the bottom without suffering any great loss themselves, though the Yorktown was torpedoed a few days later and sunk. Also, the Dolittle raid had taken place about a month before Midway, and now the Japanese mainland, without its carrier force for protection, was wide open to another such attack.

Add in the shame brought on the planners and leaders of the Japanese strike force and you have a set of circumstances that tells the Japanese the game is over. All they could do was hope for tiny victories here or there, but they saw the writing on the wall. They knew the industrial strength of the U.S. even before the war. It was just a matter of time.



Woodrow

ploughman
08-12-2004, 02:44 AM
The IJN, in hindsight, was too timid in the execution of its operations(I can't believe I'm saying that about a force that executed the Pearl Harbour attack). But beyond that the political reasoning behind the Japanese attack was dubious at best. The objective was to expell the US the Western Pacific and prevent her from intervening in the Japanese conquest of East and South East Asia, not the total and irremedial defeat of the United States. But by attacking Pearl the Japanese attacked the American homeland (psychologically, I know Hawaii wasn't a fully fledged State at the time) and invited grim retribution. Had the Japanese only attacked local American interests in Asiatic waters, maybe the Americans would not have been so relentless in their response, and might have seen the Japanese attack as a local phenomenon and not a threat to the existence of the USA. The USA fought two limited wars in Asia after WWII; Korea and Vietnam, perhaps she would have been able view the Japanese war as limited had the Japanese not attacked Pearl. A good clean fight between the IJN and a sortied American fleet advancing into the western Pacthat that was decisively won by the IJN might have resulted in a negotiated peace. I doubt it, but the way things actually worked out didn't really go the way of Japan either.

As for Pearl Harbour survivors, I've always been struck by the tragic tale of the USS Phoenix. She successfully sortied from Pearl during the Japanese attack, survived the war, was sold to Argentina and was torpedoed by a British SSN during the Falklands Conflict.

Tater-SW-
08-12-2004, 08:12 AM
Yeah, in terms of scenarios for a Japanese "victory" (ie: negotiated end of war, early on) there are none if you assume Pearl Harbor happened as it did. The notion that even spectacular USN failure at Midway would have cowed us to negotiate is silly. Several months later, we were down to 1 CV in the PTO anyway, that didn't stop us anymore than losing them at Midway would have. The Japanese never would have been able to hold Midway without huge cost since it is so far from their supply lines, and so very close to Hawaii. Taking it might have hurt them more than not taking it by making a good sub hunting ground just a couple days sailing from Pearl.

I agree that the best scenario for them would have been a limited war in the "southern resource areas." As for the Pearl attack itself, it is funny that this attack so universally regarded as spectacularly well executed resulted in sinking a couple BBs, and beaching the rest---that came back to attack them. Heheh. In hindsight I think the attack was worse than no attack at all as it happened (I also think Yammamoto is overrated, but that's another thread).

tater

Blutarski2004
08-12-2004, 08:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nimits:
The best plan for the Japanese would have been to limit their attacks to the Dutch East Indies (the US did not have any resources they wanted, and the Japanese could probably have kept on going without Malaya or Burma). Britain might have been drawn in by its alliance with the Dutch in Europe (giving the Japanese a chance to capture Malaya then). However, when (or if) the US entered the war, its desire and will to prosecute the fight would have been considerably less than was historically the case.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... I too have argued this point. Japan's principal problem with the USA had to do with Roosevelt's embargo on oil, steel, and other important industrial raw materials. Japan came to the decision that it had to go to war with the USA over this issue. A perfectly viable and safer alternative was for Japan to simply invade and occupy the Asian colonial possessions of the Netherlands, France, and Great Britain and avoid attacking any US possessions. Java had oil, Malaya had rubber, Indochina and China had iron ore and coal. Seizure of Singapore would have placed Japan in a position to guarantee the safety of its own trade routes by threatening those between the US and the Phillipines.

By 1941, Great Britain was in no position to effectively oppose any such acts by the Japanese in the SW Pacific. It would have been a 'fait accompli'.

Roosevelt would have diplomatically been put on a back foot. He would have had no convenient rationale or excuse for war and would have had a difficult time convincing a largely isolationist congress and country to support a technically unprovoked declaration of war against against Japan.

If Roosevelt had in fact succeeded in forcing through a war declaration, the Japanese (in hindsight) would have been no worse off than they were in the actual event.

Interesting what-if proposition.

BLUTARSKI

Blutarski2004
08-12-2004, 08:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ploughman:
The IJN, in hindsight, was too timid in the execution of its operations(I can't believe I'm saying that about a force that executed the Pearl Harbour attack). But beyond that the political reasoning behind the Japanese attack was dubious at best. The objective was to expell the US the Western Pacific and prevent her from intervening in the Japanese conquest of East and South East Asia, not the total and irremedial defeat of the United States. But by attacking Pearl the Japanese attacked the American homeland (psychologically, I know Hawaii wasn't a fully fledged State at the time) and invited grim retribution. Had the Japanese only attacked local American interests in Asiatic waters, maybe the Americans would not have been so relentless in their response, and might have seen the Japanese attack as a local phenomenon and not a threat to the existence of the USA. The USA fought two limited wars in Asia after WWII; Korea and Vietnam, perhaps she would have been able view the Japanese war as limited had the Japanese not attacked Pearl. A good clean fight between the IJN and a sortied American fleet advancing into the western Pacthat that was decisively won by the IJN might have resulted in a negotiated peace. I doubt it, but the way things actually worked out didn't really go the way of Japan either.

As for Pearl Harbour survivors, I've always been struck by the tragic tale of the USS Phoenix. She successfully sortied from Pearl during the Japanese attack, survived the war, was sold to Argentina and was torpedoed by a British SSN during the Falklands Conflict.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... One possible explanation behind the Japanese strategic outlook with respect to attacking the USA will be found by examining their experience in the Russo-Japanese War. Japan went to war with Imperial Russia over conflicting interests on the Asian mainland. Over the course of several years Japan was able to ultimately defeat her despite an inferiority in numbers both on land and sea. Russia basically suffered an internal political collapse of will.

The initial situational similarities are striking. The point of friction was similarly thousands of miles distant from the opponent's center of gravity. The issue itself from the US point of view was not a true casus belli. And the international perception of the US in the 30's was that of an isolationist nation unprepared for war and beset by internal political and economic problems. IMO, these similarities to the previous Russian situation seduced the Japanese military into repeating the strategic approach which had been taken by them in the Russo-Japanese War. The big difference was that their attack upon Pearl Harbor proved to be far too close to the perceived American center of gravity. The rest, as they say, is history.

BLUTARSKI

[This message was edited by Blutarski2004 on Thu August 12 2004 at 08:04 AM.]

[This message was edited by Blutarski2004 on Thu August 12 2004 at 08:09 AM.]

[This message was edited by Blutarski2004 on Thu August 12 2004 at 08:10 AM.]

Tater-SW-
08-12-2004, 10:37 AM
It really is interesting, isn't it. Way back in early Target:Rabaul discussions, this came up because they wanted a campaign where branching scenarios happened. They wanted the Japanese side to have some chance at "winning" the game. I argued that with the assumption of Pearl Harbor, there was NO realistic scenario, even if they did everything right, and we did everything wrong. The only useful what-if involves NOT attacking the US directly. Had they not attacked the US, Germany would not have declared war on the US. Lack of a state of war with the US might have freed the IJA to attack the Soviets, as well, something the chose not to do while dealing with the US. This could have had interesting (bad) implications on the Eastern Front.

That or they could have pulled out of the newly aquired bits of China they grabbed, or even done that at the same time to appease the US. They could have simply taken the colonies of countries conquered by the Germans, as well (Dutch and French).

tater

Jason Bourne
08-12-2004, 03:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
Lack of a state of war with the US might have freed the IJA to attack the Soviets, as well, something the chose not to do while dealing with the US. This could have had interesting (bad) implications on the Eastern Front.
tater<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hmm, while that might have happened, i seriously doubt it. after all, the russians NEVER took forces from their boarder with Japan/Manchuria, even during the bitter months in stalingrad and moscow. they knew that to do so would be equivalant to suicide. Another reason why that wouldnt have happened is that the japanese generally had inferior tanks to every other country, bad enough tanks infact that American Stuarts actually could be used on the frount line. and while Japan had bad tanks, russia had some of the best tanks and AT guns around, making any attack out of manchuria into the russian steppe unlikly at best.

horseback
08-12-2004, 04:36 PM
Please wait while your request is being ignored...

Midway. The single most important sea battle in the 20th century, period. Not only did it eliminate the Japanese Navy's best carriers, but it wiped out the cream of the Japanese Navy's aviators, not just fighter pilots, but the best dive bomber and torpedo bomber crewmen in the world, in a theater where air power was the most critical means of power projection.

It would be as though two-thirds of the Luftwaffe's prewar trained pilots and aircrew were lost in a single day seven months after the outbreak of the war, and lost much of the prewar military investment in the bargain, say a third of all armor and artillery available at the same time. Economically and psychologically devastating.

At the same time, it gave the US Navy a huge psychological lift, and they were the ones who had to do the heavy lifting in the early part of the war. While the US would have won the war with Japan regardless, Midway cut a good six months to a year off the end date.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Baco-ECV56
08-12-2004, 04:54 PM
Not to mention that the japaneese didn´t have any chance in the air either...

Can you imagine what an IL-2 can do to a japaneese tank?

Anbd I don´t belive that the industrial capacity of Russia wouldn,t be able to cope with the extra challenge. Of course.. With the US out of the war perhaps thing wouldn´t have worked out so well on the western front... With out the man popwer and suplies that the US brought in, I don´t know if Overlord would have been posible, so Things in the Eastern Front migth have become complicated since no german armies would be tied up on the west...

But eventually, the US would have to get into the war, can you imagine a cold war with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan?... I think that Kruchev would look like a kindergarten kid besides Hitler and the men "controling/advising" Iroito.

Not to mention that maybe Germany might have had more tme to compleat its wonder weapons

The US could not have compited with Germanys technology, since the research and the full use of their industruial might were a result of entering the WWII.
I don´t know if the reserch on the P-51 Mustng was a pre war design? ANd do you think that Grouman would have come up with the Wildcat and bearcat if the US didn´t need them to fight the japaneese?
or the B-29?

Then aggain, some reseacrh would have continued to aid the Birtish (or better put to sell to the Birtish and Russians better hardware http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

ploughman
08-13-2004, 02:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> hmm, while that might have happened, i seriously doubt it. after all, the russians NEVER took forces from their boarder with Japan/Manchuria, even during the bitter months in stalingrad and moscow. they knew that to do so would be equivalant to suicide. Another reason why that wouldnt have happened is that the japanese generally had inferior tanks to every other country, bad enough tanks infact that American Stuarts actually could be used on the frount line. and while Japan had bad tanks, russia had some of the best tanks and AT guns around, making any attack out of manchuria into the russian steppe unlikly at best. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Russians had an agent, Richard Sorge who was the Press Attache a the German Embassy in Tokyo. Sorge told Moswow that Japan would not attack the USSR but would instead turn south and East. This information, and the credibility it was accorded in Moscow, allowed the Russians to relocate Siberian troops from the Russian Far East to provide forces for the Moscow winter counter-offensive that smashed the German front.
link (http://www.fact-index.com/r/ri/richard_sorge.html)

Tater-SW-
08-13-2004, 08:24 AM
That was my understanding as well regarding the russian moving forces west from asia.

tater

Blutarski2004
08-16-2004, 03:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
_Midway._ The single most important sea battle in the 20th century, period. Not only did it eliminate the Japanese Navy's best carriers, but it wiped out the cream of the Japanese Navy's aviators, not just fighter pilots, but the best dive bomber and torpedo bomber crewmen in the world, ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Actually, research indicates that the large majority of the pre-war trained pilots and air crew from the four Japanese carriers lost at Midway survived. Their units were re-constituted and sent to Rabaul, where, in the absence of carriers, they operated from land bases during the Guadalcanal campaign. It was in this campaign that they were nearly wiped out by steady attrition.

An interesting sidelight to Midway.

BLUTARSKI

Tater-SW-
08-16-2004, 04:20 PM
As an aside, I'd add that in a war, things get destroyed. Soldiers and aircrews get killed. Starting a war with almost ZERO ability to replace losses is astoundingly dumb. As a result, in order to have even the most remote chance of their desired goal (a negotiated peace in the first 6 months to a year), they needed to do everything perfectly, and with minimal losses, particularly of naval and merchant shipping.

Before I said Pearl Harbor
was the most important because the failure of the attack on the most basic levels (the plan itself, to its execution)precipitated the destruction of Japan. If Pearl is taken off the table, I'd say the most important battle was the PTO equivilent of the Battle of the Atlantic. The submarine war. Japan was shattered by her failure to produce enough merchant shipping, and protect what little she did have. 5.6 million tons of shipping, and the year before the war they imported 67 million tons of raw materials and goods. They follow a Royal Navy model, but fail to realize protecting their supplies is the number one priority.

tater