Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
Page / 4
Next Page Arrow Left
Link Posted: 2/24/2012 2:18:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ceverett:

If the goal was simply to keep the US out of the action for a few months, I still think that destroying the ammo dumps, dry-docks, and fuel dumps would have done the job. Even if the Japanese believed that was not the case, You would HAVE to destroy or at least damage the aircraft carriers. As it was, it still took 6 months for the US to get it's carriers into action in the battle of the coral sea. Arguably, the Japanese would have been left alone in any event (thought that is 20/20 hindsight)

Without destroying some other stuff, all blowing up the battleships did was piss us off. And there's no reason that Yamamoto should not have been able to figure that out, seeing as he pretty much said as much, and was developing war plans based on air power. All when the Japanese fleet could not even survive the losses of a single defeat.

I'm sensitive to the 20/20 hindsight rule, but so much of what Yamamoto said/did is really just


The battleships of the Pacific Fleet constitutted a "fleet in being". Look at how much of the Royal Navy was tied up by the handful of ships that Germany had, for almost the entire duration of the war. For Japan to gain the territory she wanted, with the fleet she had, the battleships at Pear HAD to be knocked out of action. Otherwise, her initiative and freedom of action would have been so restricted that she could not have a good chance of getting the settlement she wanted from the western powers. If those ships still exist, even if they had been pulled back to the west coast, Japan could never know when they would sortie, and the fleet could, and later in the war was, supplied from tankers, barges, and ammo ships.

Link Posted: 2/24/2012 2:32:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Rick-OShay:
Originally Posted By LARRYG:
Originally Posted By Rick-OShay:
Originally Posted By ceverett:

We certainly didn't have 2 million men fighting the Germans on December 6th, 1941.


No, but we certainly has U.S. naval forces waging war on them.


But that's not all he said. He said we had a 2 million man army engaged with the Germans at the time.


I have never affirmed that to be the case. It is not. I am stating as a matter of historical record that U.S. armed forces were waging war on the Germans before Pearl Harbor.



Yes, I know that, but that doesn't account for the "2 million man army" remark.
Link Posted: 2/24/2012 2:55:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By swede1986:
Originally Posted By Scratch45:
OK, I get that there are inaccuracies in the OPs mass email repost.

And while being a hunter is not the same thing as being a trained soldier, I still think the number of guns in civilians hands would cause problems for an invading force.

Did no one see Red Dawn?



The vast amounts of fertilizer in the hands of American farmers would be a far more formidable arsenal than any amount of rifles.


While in general I agree that explosives are more important than small arms to partisans, I don't know how well ammonium nitrate work in such a scenario. Ammonium nitrate is quite hygroscopic, so care must be taken when storing it. I doubt the storage conditions in occupied territory are very good.

To all of those saying that American hunters could stop a military force, how many rounds of ammunition do you think the average hunter has on hand?
Link Posted: 2/24/2012 2:55:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Rick-OShay:

The battleships of the Pacific Fleet constitutted a "fleet in being". Look at how much of the Royal Navy was tied up by the handful of ships that Germany had, for almost the entire duration of the war. For Japan to gain the territory she wanted, with the fleet she had, the battleships at Pear HAD to be knocked out of action. Otherwise, her initiative and freedom of action would have been so restricted that she could not have a good chance of getting the settlement she wanted from the western powers. If those ships still exist, even if they had been pulled back to the west coast, Japan could never know when they would sortie, and the fleet could, and later in the war was, supplied from tankers, barges, and ammo ships.


Then you best not attack until you can take out the carriers too. As we saw through the war, and as the Japanese certainly should have known at the time, they were the more valuable asset. I'm not saying that the battleships had no value, just that the Japanese priorities for targets was totally wrong. Without the carriers, we would have been stuck with no real power projection capability, and our other vessels would have been vulnerable to air attack. Without fuel and ammo in Pearl, offensive operations would have been very difficult to sustain, and it would have made our supply line even more critical––and vulnerable. Without the drydocks, time to repair damaged vessels vastly increases, also significantly reducing our ability to conduct offensive operations. Without the battleships, we are somewhat less effective, and have to be more careful in choosing our battles. That's the tactical reality as I see it. And if you are going to sink the battleships, wait until they are in the channel, harder to refloat, and restricting access to the harbor.


Link Posted: 2/24/2012 2:57:25 PM EDT
Forward this thread to Bill Gates and he will give you $500.
Link Posted: 2/24/2012 3:05:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/24/2012 3:10:53 PM EDT by odontia32m]
Originally Posted By LurchAddams:
Originally Posted By DukeFan23:
Stopped by my dads house the other day and he handed me some info a guy he works with gave him, don't know the accuracy or source of the info but thought in was interesting non the less. It a little long so hang in there. Here it goes.

"True story and most people will never know it. After the Japanese decimated our fleet in Pearl Harbor Dec. 7, 1941, They could have sent their troop ships and carriers directly to California to finish what they started. The prediction from our Chief of Staff was we would not be able to stop a massive invasion until they reached the Mississippi River. Remember, we had a 2 million man army and war ships... All fighting the Germans.



We didn't have two million men fighting the Germans on Dec 7th.

The other points are interesting, however.

?
WTF, when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

ETA after seeing the dumb asses not noticing this fuckin major flaw in the OP I am even less confident in our future,

Link Posted: 2/24/2012 4:15:28 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ceverett:

Then you best not attack until you can take out the carriers too. As we saw through the war, and as the Japanese certainly should have known at the time, they were the more valuable asset.


"As we saw through the war" is hindsight - not available to any party at the time.

" ... as the Japanese certainly shoudl have known at the time..." - no such thing. They were executing a coup de main against an enemy technically not at war with them. They were using the only asset that could do so. Neither they, nor anyone, had any reason to believe such actions could work against an enemy fully alerted and at war. Had the radar station been headed, it might not have. The fact that we were able to use carrier strikes early in the war was largely due to having nothing else to use, and the paucity of the Japanese early warning radar and picket ship network at the time. Later on it succeeded due to overwhelming force and technological development of the aircraft themselves.

I'm not saying that the battleships had no value, just that the Japanese priorities for targets was totally wrong.


Again, I submit this is hindsight.

Without the carriers, we would have been stuck with no real power projection capability, and our other vessels would have been vulnerable to air attack.


Youknow there are army air bases on Hawaii, right?

Without fuel and ammo in Pearl, offensive operations would have been very difficult to sustain, and it would have made our supply line even more critical––and vulnerable.

Yes. But you can't have everything. Japan was so weak that they could not afford to leave the 6 carriers of the strike force at risk long enough to hit everything, and each successive wave faced greater resistance and loses. Plus there were the missing carriers - those six Jap flattops would have been very vulerable if they had been caught launching or recovering by the missing U.S. carriers. So how many strikes you gonna stick around to launch? The risk grows with each one, and destroying the BBs is the job you are there to do, to thwart Plan Orange and get the negotiated peace the leadership is banking on.

Without the drydocks, time to repair damaged vessels vastly increases, also significantly reducing our ability to conduct offensive operations. Without the battleships, we are somewhat less effective, and have to be more careful in choosing our battles. That's the tactical reality as I see it. And if you are going to sink the battleships, wait until they are in the channel, harder to refloat, and restricting access to the harbor.


That last bit requires you to stick around while they get up steam, and then time it to catch them in the channel. Not such an easy thing to do. Meanwhile, you give the Americans more time to find you, and hit you with a carrier strike, land-based air, or a coordinated submarine attack.

Link Posted: 2/24/2012 4:21:27 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DonKey153:
Originally Posted By swede1986:
Originally Posted By DonS:
Originally Posted By swede1986:
An armoured force can't be stopped by small arms fire. Hunters aren't soldiers.


The Japs had a pathetic armored force. They had no armored troop transports, and would not be able to advance their tanks without infantry support.

And their pathetic tanks would have been easier to destroy by improvised weapons then more advanced tanks used by other nations later in the war.

The US tradition of an armed public would have been a big advantage for the US. We have historically been able to quickly raise large, reasonably competent armies in part due to all those "aren't soldiers" you are talking about. Santa Anna's professional army was defeated by outnumbered "not soldiers", and in the Spanish American War our army went from 27k men to over 100k in about 6 months. Those 100k were not crack troops equal to the best professionals, but they were competent enough and were actually close to the pros in performance.

Sweden isn't the US, and what works for us won't work for you.



The Japs still had artillery and other support weapons.



Which would have a very shaky support structure and have to be guarded constantly to prevent things like thermite "accidents"


That's pretty much what I've been saying all along. Sabotage and IEDs/mines would be decisive, not rifles.
Link Posted: 2/24/2012 4:23:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Bakelite47:
Originally Posted By swede1986:
Originally Posted By Scratch45:
OK, I get that there are inaccuracies in the OPs mass email repost.

And while being a hunter is not the same thing as being a trained soldier, I still think the number of guns in civilians hands would cause problems for an invading force.

Did no one see Red Dawn?



The vast amounts of fertilizer in the hands of American farmers would be a far more formidable arsenal than any amount of rifles.


While in general I agree that explosives are more important than small arms to partisans, I don't know how well ammonium nitrate work in such a scenario. Ammonium nitrate is quite hygroscopic, so care must be taken when storing it. I doubt the storage conditions in occupied territory are very good.

To all of those saying that American hunters could stop a military force, how many rounds of ammunition do you think the average hunter has on hand?


A few rounds, you take out a patrol. Then, you have THEIR ammo, plus rifles and maybe a LMG.

Repeat until you run out of Japs.


Link Posted: 2/24/2012 4:25:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Bakelite47:
Originally Posted By swede1986:
Originally Posted By Scratch45:
OK, I get that there are inaccuracies in the OPs mass email repost.

And while being a hunter is not the same thing as being a trained soldier, I still think the number of guns in civilians hands would cause problems for an invading force.

Did no one see Red Dawn?



The vast amounts of fertilizer in the hands of American farmers would be a far more formidable arsenal than any amount of rifles.


While in general I agree that explosives are more important than small arms to partisans, I don't know how well ammonium nitrate work in such a scenario. Ammonium nitrate is quite hygroscopic, so care must be taken when storing it. I doubt the storage conditions in occupied territory are very good.

To all of those saying that American hunters could stop a military force, how many rounds of ammunition do you think the average hunter has on hand?


That's true but that could easily be overcome.
Link Posted: 2/24/2012 4:27:50 PM EDT
This thing is still going...huh
Link Posted: 2/24/2012 4:30:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/24/2012 4:31:14 PM EDT by beachcommando]
"invasions" are old school. No real need for them anymore. Just destroy with weapons from afar. We are the only misguided idiots that invade and try to "nation build" anymore.(not talking about the third world here).
Link Posted: 2/24/2012 4:32:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/24/2012 4:39:29 PM EDT by HeavyMetal]
Link Posted: 2/24/2012 4:36:53 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DukeFan23:
This thing is still going...huh


Actually a pretty good and respectful discussion. I may disagree with the points some posters make, but they are logical, well thought out, and supportable. I am really enjoying this, and thank everyone, regardless of their take on the topic.

Link Posted: 2/24/2012 4:41:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Rick-OShay:
Originally Posted By ceverett:

Then you best not attack until you can take out the carriers too. As we saw through the war, and as the Japanese certainly should have known at the time, they were the more valuable asset.


"As we saw through the war" is hindsight - not available to any party at the time.

" ... as the Japanese certainly shoudl have known at the time..." - no such thing. They were executing a coup de main against an enemy technically not at war with them. They were using the only asset that could do so. Neither they, nor anyone, had any reason to believe such actions could work against an enemy fully alerted and at war. Had the radar station been headed, it might not have. The fact that we were able to use carrier strikes early in the war was largely due to having nothing else to use, and the paucity of the Japanese early warning radar and picket ship network at the time. Later on it succeeded due to overwhelming force and technological development of the aircraft themselves.

I would propose that the idea that aircraft carriers were the future was already known to much of the leadership on each side by Pearl. They had already been used with success in Italy, and you already brought up the sinking of the Bismark. I would agree that the sinking of the battleships forced the issue for us, and that WAS an unforseeable consequence. But again, consider the Japanese were attacking Pearl exclusively withe aircraft carriers, and that they were concerned about the location of those carriers, it seems apparent that they did get the value of them.... And then they just said, "screw it, attack anyway" I think that was a HUGE error.

I'm not saying that the battleships had no value, just that the Japanese priorities for targets was totally wrong.


Again, I submit this is hindsight.

Without the carriers, we would have been stuck with no real power projection capability, and our other vessels would have been vulnerable to air attack.


Youknow there are army air bases on Hawaii, right?


Which would have only covered ships within a few hundred miles of the islands, but not offensive operations. Sending battleships alone to the Coral Sea or midway would have been a bloodbath.

Without fuel and ammo in Pearl, offensive operations would have been very difficult to sustain, and it would have made our supply line even more critical––and vulnerable.

Yes. But you can't have everything. Japan was so weak that they could not afford to leave the 6 carriers of the strike force at risk long enough to hit everything, and each successive wave faced greater resistance and loses. Plus there were the missing carriers - those six Jap flattops would have been very vulerable if they had been caught launching or recovering by the missing U.S. carriers. So how many strikes you gonna stick around to launch? The risk grows with each one, and destroying the BBs is the job you are there to do, to thwart Plan Orange and get the negotiated peace the leadership is banking on.

Like I've said before, they should not have launched even the first wave unless they could get the carriers. And if you want a negotiated peace, going after the battleships is a bad plan. Yamamoto understood the symbolism of those ships.


Without the drydocks, time to repair damaged vessels vastly increases, also significantly reducing our ability to conduct offensive operations. Without the battleships, we are somewhat less effective, and have to be more careful in choosing our battles. That's the tactical reality as I see it. And if you are going to sink the battleships, wait until they are in the channel, harder to refloat, and restricting access to the harbor.


That last bit requires you to stick around while they get up steam, and then time it to catch them in the channel. Not such an easy thing to do. Meanwhile, you give the Americans more time to find you, and hit you with a carrier strike, land-based air, or a coordinated submarine attack.

I agree that would have been hard to do. But I seem to recall that we almost did have a couple sunk in the channel.

I get that the whole thing was a huge gamble for Japan, and I think their leadership (at least the admiralty) understood that. But I think they got a lousy hand and failed to fold... And then they didn't even play the cards they did get well.

Link Posted: 2/24/2012 4:42:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Rick-OShay:
Originally Posted By DukeFan23:
This thing is still going...huh


Actually a pretty good and respectful discussion. I may disagree with the points some posters make, but they are logical, well thought out, and supportable. I am really enjoying this, and thank everyone, regardless of their take on the topic.


Yes it is.

Link Posted: 2/24/2012 4:45:58 PM EDT
Holy crap! Did someone just sign up for Prodigy and get their first email account? How old is this email and why do people keep repeating it?

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 2/24/2012 4:47:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ceverett:

Originally Posted By Rick-OShay:
Originally Posted By DukeFan23:
This thing is still going...huh


Actually a pretty good and respectful discussion. I may disagree with the points some posters make, but they are logical, well thought out, and supportable. I am really enjoying this, and thank everyone, regardless of their take on the topic.


Yes it is.

[/quote

I guess a lil entertainment is all u can ask for, especially around GD

Link Posted: 2/24/2012 4:49:28 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Fatbert:
Where would they have gotten the troops? They were already fighting in China, Burma, the Philippines, Korea, Indonesia, etc.



Holy logistics Batman.....

They did invade Alaska.....parts of which were 500 mi from Boeing...IIRC
Link Posted: 2/24/2012 4:53:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By thelaststand:
Taking over the US would be a nightmare, there are simply too many skilled shooters in the US. Tanks, Artillary and aircraft are not very effective against individuals or small groups.

If an army invaded the US, there would be so many gun owners trying to take a shot at the enemy that most people would never even be able to get into the fight. I'd imagine that most dead enemy soldiers after they were massacured would probably still be shot up by gun owners that didn't get to shoot at them when they were alive.

I'm sure I will be corrected by a DU troll, but fact is, american gun owners are the largest and most dangerous army on earth.


That's why we don't use them in war, right?
Link Posted: 2/24/2012 5:14:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ceverett:I would propose that the idea that aircraft carriers were the future was already known to much of the leadership on each side by Pearl.


It was proposd by some, who came to be very influential as the war progressed. However, the "black shoe" admirals were very much in charge on all sides ante bellum, and this can be seen in the procurement programs of all combatants. Carriers had to be improvised from ocean liners, battleships (Japan), light cruisers, fast merchant ships, (U.S., Britain) because the priorities for building did not reflect an enhanced value for naval aviation.

They had already been used with success in Italy, and you already brought up the sinking of the Bismark. I would agree that the sinking of the battleships forced the issue for us, and that WAS an unforseeable consequence. But again, consider the Japanese were attacking Pearl exclusively withe aircraft carriers, and that they were concerned about the location of those carriers, it seems apparent that they did get the value of them.... And then they just said, "screw it, attack anyway" I think that was a HUGE error.


They didn't have a choice about the timing - a declaration of war was being sent, and simultaneous operations were underway for the Phillipines, Indonesia, the British possessions, China, etc. They had no choice but to execute, and execute RIGHT NOW.

Which would have only covered ships within a few hundred miles of the islands, but not offensive operations. Sending battleships alone to the Coral Sea or midway would have been a bloodbath.


This is a good point.

Like I've said before, they should not have launched even the first wave unless they could get the carriers. And if you want a negotiated peace, going after the battleships is a bad plan. Yamamoto understood the symbolism of those ships.


I think Saratoga or Enterprise would have had a similar effect if hit.


I agree that would have been hard to do. But I seem to recall that we almost did have a couple sunk in the channel.


One. Nevada IIRC. But you can't count on that kind of luck or timing.

I get that the whole thing was a huge gamble for Japan, and I think their leadership (at least the admiralty) understood that. But I think they got a lousy hand and failed to fold... And then they didn't even play the cards they did get well.


Were I in charge of Kido Butai, I would have launched at least one more strike.

Link Posted: 2/24/2012 5:20:07 PM EDT
Um real,real simple. Logistics.
Link Posted: 2/24/2012 5:52:34 PM EDT
Has anyone said, "logistics" yet?

Link Posted: 2/24/2012 6:12:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Rick-OShay:
Originally Posted By ceverett:I would propose that the idea that aircraft carriers were the future was already known to much of the leadership on each side by Pearl.


It was proposd by some, who came to be very influential as the war progressed. However, the "black shoe" admirals were very much in charge on all sides ante bellum, and this can be seen in the procurement programs of all combatants. Carriers had to be improvised from ocean liners, battleships (Japan), light cruisers, fast merchant ships, (U.S., Britain) because the priorities for building did not reflect an enhanced value for naval aviation.

They had already been used with success in Italy, and you already brought up the sinking of the Bismark. I would agree that the sinking of the battleships forced the issue for us, and that WAS an unforseeable consequence. But again, consider the Japanese were attacking Pearl exclusively withe aircraft carriers, and that they were concerned about the location of those carriers, it seems apparent that they did get the value of them.... And then they just said, "screw it, attack anyway" I think that was a HUGE error.


They didn't have a choice about the timing - a declaration of war was being sent, and simultaneous operations were underway for the Phillipines, Indonesia, the British possessions, China, etc. They had no choice but to execute, and execute RIGHT NOW.

Which would have only covered ships within a few hundred miles of the islands, but not offensive operations. Sending battleships alone to the Coral Sea or midway would have been a bloodbath.


This is a good point.

Like I've said before, they should not have launched even the first wave unless they could get the carriers. And if you want a negotiated peace, going after the battleships is a bad plan. Yamamoto understood the symbolism of those ships.


I think Saratoga or Enterprise would have had a similar effect if hit.


I agree that would have been hard to do. But I seem to recall that we almost did have a couple sunk in the channel.


One. Nevada IIRC. But you can't count on that kind of luck or timing.

I get that the whole thing was a huge gamble for Japan, and I think their leadership (at least the admiralty) understood that. But I think they got a lousy hand and failed to fold... And then they didn't even play the cards they did get well.


Were I in charge of Kido Butai, I would have launched at least one more strike.



Excellent discussion.

One point of clarification, Nevada did not sink "in the channel". The captain ran her aground near the entrance to West Loch to prevent her from blocking the channel if the Japanese hit her a few times. The location is still referred to as "Nevada Point".
Link Posted: 2/25/2012 5:34:33 AM EDT
The tyranny of distance
Link Posted: 2/25/2012 5:38:51 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/25/2012 10:18:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Rick-OShay:
Originally Posted By ceverett:I would propose that the idea that aircraft carriers were the future was already known to much of the leadership on each side by Pearl.


It was proposd by some, who came to be very influential as the war progressed. However, the "black shoe" admirals were very much in charge on all sides ante bellum, and this can be seen in the procurement programs of all combatants. Carriers had to be improvised from ocean liners, battleships (Japan), light cruisers, fast merchant ships, (U.S., Britain) because the priorities for building did not reflect an enhanced value for naval aviation.

Certainly there was a battleship mafia in those days. Agreed. I still think Japan was more aware of the value, hence the willingness to convert battleships to carriers.

They had already been used with success in Italy, and you already brought up the sinking of the Bismark. I would agree that the sinking of the battleships forced the issue for us, and that WAS an unforseeable consequence. But again, consider the Japanese were attacking Pearl exclusively withe aircraft carriers, and that they were concerned about the location of those carriers, it seems apparent that they did get the value of them.... And then they just said, "screw it, attack anyway" I think that was a HUGE error.


They didn't have a choice about the timing - a declaration of war was being sent, and simultaneous operations were underway for the Phillipines, Indonesia, the British possessions, China, etc. They had no choice but to execute, and execute RIGHT NOW.

Fair point


Like I've said before, they should not have launched even the first wave unless they could get the carriers. And if you want a negotiated peace, going after the battleships is a bad plan. Yamamoto understood the symbolism of those ships.


I think Saratoga or Enterprise would have had a similar effect if hit.


Agreed. I think in the absence of the carriers, just going after the infrastructure targets would have been a better call, but I acknowledge I'm well into 20/20 hindsight on that one.


I get that the whole thing was a huge gamble for Japan, and I think their leadership (at least the admiralty) understood that. But I think they got a lousy hand and failed to fold... And then they didn't even play the cards they did get well.


Were I in charge of Kido Butai, I would have launched at least one more strike.


Agreed.

I think we all agree that Japan really overextended themselves by going to Pearl in the first place, and maybe there was no good battle plan with the resources and capabilities they had. I think the overall Japanese war plan, frankly, sucked donkey balls. Being able to succesfully overtake China (which was in the middle of a civil war already, as China often was, and who really didn't have a modern military) created a tremendous amount of overconfidence within the Japanese military. Nor did Japan never had the resources to defend the area of the pacific that they did overtake.

I think Japan had two separate and distinct goals at Pearl. One was to prevent the success of War Plan Orange, and the other was to get the US to sue for peace early and allow Japan to keep much of their conquered territory. I would propose the individually, those plans require significantly different strategies, and Japan did not have the resources to "get both". In fact, to some extent, I think they are mutually exclusive of each other.
Link Posted: 2/25/2012 11:29:03 AM EDT
The line about the 2 million men fighting Germans makes me and finally . Why is it so hard for people to learn history?

Knowledge of American history should be a requirement for citizenship.
Link Posted: 2/25/2012 11:53:32 AM EDT
I did not bother to read any of this as these type of topics usually end up as intelligent as a debate on gas prices. Look at how hard it was for us to secure supply routes through the Atlantic, the Japanese would not have had a prayer (just look at the number of supply ships required for the European Theater) and I doubt gave an invasion any serious thought.
Link Posted: 2/25/2012 11:56:34 AM EDT
Long supply chain= failure

That is why a U.S. invasion during WWII was unlikely.
Link Posted: 2/25/2012 12:00:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By GarandM1:

Originally Posted By Rick-OShay:
The japanese did not invade the mainland for two very good reasons.

1. Invasion of the United Sttaes was not the goal they were fighting for. Imperial Japan wanted to knock out the Pacific Fleet, occupy the Phillipines and Indonesia, and then negotiate a settlement tot he war that, at a minimum, would legitimize and recognize the territory Japan had siezed on mainlan Asia, (and at a bonus, perhaps some of their new Pacific aquisitions as well.)

Explanation: wars of national extinction were virtually unheard of before WWII. Even in WWI, Germany continued to exist. Japan looked around and saw that France, Great Britain, the United States, Holland, etc all had colonial possessions, and she wanted to play the Gret Game as well. Unfortunately, she was behind the times, and the territory she was mandated after WWI only whet her appetite. SHe expected a suprise attack, some quick victories, and a negotiated peace with re-drawn boundaries, especially since she (Japan) figured we would (rightly?) be pre-occupied with defeatig Germany.

What Japan got was a war of national extinction and a demand for unconditional surrender, whihc in the end was only slightly modified.

2. Japan couldn't get there - it did not possess enough merchant ships to maintain a supply line to support an invasion, much less the naval vessels to open the sea lanes and escort them.

Explanation: Japan couldn't even invade Hawaii, much less the mainland U.S. To move and support enough troops to conquer the Hawaiian Islands, would have required the continuous commitment of 100 to 115 merchant ships - just doing that. Japan couldn't spare enought for that, which is one reason why Pearl Harbor was just a raid.

This. Logistics, logistics, logistics. The Japanese had a hard enough time keeping hold of Indochina, Manchuria, the Phillipines, and the various Pacific Islands. They simply didn't have the troops or ships to invade and hold any part of the US.

And and and, they would have got their asses shot off

Link Posted: 2/25/2012 12:15:29 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DukeFan23:
Stopped by my dads house the other day and he handed me some info a guy he works with gave him, don't know the accuracy or source of the info but thought in was interesting non the less. It a little long so hang in there. Here it goes.

"True story and most people will never know it. After the Japanese decimated our fleet in Pearl Harbor Dec. 7, 1941, They could have sent their troop ships and carriers directly to California to finish what they started. The prediction from our Chief of Staff was we would not be able to stop a massive invasion until they reached the Mississippi River. Remember, we hgad a 2 million man army and war ships... All fighting the Germans.

So. why did they not invade?

After the war, the remaining Japanese gernerals and admirals were asked that question. Their answer....They know that almost every home had guns and the Americans knew how to use them.. The world's largest army....America's hunters! I had never thought about this....

A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:

There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin...Allow me to restate that number. Over the last several months, Wisconsin's hunters became the 8th largest army in the world.

More men under arms than in Iran...

More than France and Germany combined.

These men deployed to the woods of a single American state to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed.

That numbers pales in comparasion to 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan's 700,000. Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virgina and it literally establishes the fact that the hunters of those 4 states alone would comprise the largest army in the world.

The Point? America will forever b e safe from foregin invasion with that kind of home grown firepower. Hunting...it';s not just a way to fill the freezers. It's a matter of national security. That's why all enemies, foreign and domestic, want to see us disarmed. Food for thought when next we consider gun control."




I'm all for "America; Fuck Yeah!" -isms.

But this theory on X amount of hunters equaling a mass army ready to go to war is far fetched, IMO. The #'s look good on paper, but that's about where it ends. I've seen this same story posted before, and while it's an encouraging read, I leave it at that.

YMMV
Link Posted: 2/25/2012 12:19:20 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Paul:
Logistics is a bitch.


Yup. So are chain emails.
Link Posted: 2/25/2012 1:06:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DukeFan23:
Stopped by my dads house the other day and he handed me some info a guy he works with gave him, don't know the accuracy or source of the info but thought in was interesting non the less. It a little long so hang in there. Here it goes.

"True story and most people will never know it. After the Japanese decimated our fleet in Pearl Harbor Dec. 7, 1941, They could have sent their troop ships and carriers directly to California to finish what they started. The prediction from our Chief of Staff was we would not be able to stop a massive invasion until they reached the Mississippi River. Remember, we hgad a 2 million man army and war ships... All fighting the Germans.

So. why did they not invade?

After the war, the remaining Japanese gernerals and admirals were asked that question. Their answer....They know that almost every home had guns and the Americans knew how to use them.. The world's largest army....America's hunters! I had never thought about this....

A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:

There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin...Allow me to restate that number. Over the last several months, Wisconsin's hunters became the 8th largest army in the world.

More men under arms than in Iran...

More than France and Germany combined.

These men deployed to the woods of a single American state to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed.

That numbers pales in comparasion to 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan's 700,000. Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virgina and it literally establishes the fact that the hunters of those 4 states alone would comprise the largest army in the world.

The Point? America will forever b e safe from foregin invasion with that kind of home grown firepower. Hunting...it';s not just a way to fill the freezers. It's a matter of national security. That's why all enemies, foreign and domestic, want to see us disarmed. Food for thought when next we consider gun control."




Becuase as they put it" there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

J-
Link Posted: 2/25/2012 4:07:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ceverett:Certainly there was a battleship mafia in those days. Agreed. I still think Japan was more aware of the value, hence the willingness to convert battleships to carriers.


Perhaps. One school of thought is that Japan was saddled with an unfavorable ratio in the naval treaties, and thus converted two battlecruisers into carriers, (actually, one was damaged in an earthquake, and a battleship under construction was substituted) as a way for them to preserve the hulls, with the possible intention of stripping the flight decks off and re-finishing them as battleships/battlecruisers if war seemed emminent. In addition, they sneaked through a couple of "ocean liners" that were finished as flat-tops as well. Rumor was, (don't know how true) that some of the carriers had shell magazines and turret rings under the flight deck. So maybe Japan was just fortuitious in that carriers that they did not intend to use as such were more valuable than the capital ships they intended to turn them into.


Agreed.

I think we all agree that Japan really overextended themselves by going to Pearl in the first place, and maybe there was no good battle plan with the resources and capabilities they had. I think the overall Japanese war plan, frankly, sucked donkey balls. Being able to succesfully overtake China (which was in the middle of a civil war already, as China often was, and who really didn't have a modern military) created a tremendous amount of overconfidence within the Japanese military. Nor did Japan never had the resources to defend the area of the pacific that they did overtake.

I think Japan had two separate and distinct goals at Pearl. One was to prevent the success of War Plan Orange, and the other was to get the US to sue for peace early and allow Japan to keep much of their conquered territory. I would propose the individually, those plans require significantly different strategies, and Japan did not have the resources to "get both". In fact, to some extent, I think they are mutually exclusive of each other.


I think their relatively easy victory over Russia in 1905 made them really, really over-confident.

Page / 4
Next Page Arrow Left
Top Top