MHow impressive were the Japanese campaigns (41-42) ?

starman · May 31, 2023

SSDD said:
And somewhat zero tactical sense also.

Japan wanted to deliver a crippling blow to US navy by attacking Pearl Harbour.

But they themselves forgot how they themselves were able to refloat and repair sunken Russian warships in Port Arthur in 1904-1905 war. They also saw Italians were refloating and repairing their damaged, sunken ships in Taranto. Still they chose to attack Pearl Habour. As such, most of the damaged and sunken ships were refloated, repaired and returned to service.

At least one was a total loss and crippling others at least bought Japan some time. Japan btw was unlucky in that the carriers weren't present at PH at the time.

SSDD said:
A more wise decision would be to send carrier battle group to attack British fleet off Singapore and send submarines to block entrance of Pearl Habour to prevent US navy from going to join war.

The USN rightly got priority. The IJN did in fact send plenty of submarines to Hawaiian waters, with the expectation they would do more damage over time than the initial strike. They could've bagged one or more carriers and refloated battleships on their way back to the states. But they only got a few merchantmen and damaged Saratoga.

dubsar · May 31, 2023

starman said:
The USN rightly got priority. The IJN did in fact send plenty of submarines to Hawaiian waters, with the expectation they would do more damage over time than the initial strike. They could've bagged one or more carriers and refloated battleships on their way back to the states. But they only got a few merchantmen and damaged Saratoga.

I don't think that submarines on their own were very effective against a moving naval task force in WW II. Particular a task force containing carriers and supported by hundreds of land-based aircraft. The USN had ASDIC and had been getting British reports on how to fight submarines!

marathag · May 31, 2023

peccavi said:
The 2 pounder was lightweight could be handled by two men and proved excellent at Dunkirk against German tanks. It would become swiftly obsolescent in North Africa, where the Germans (in response) upped the weight of armour but against Japanese tanks it was still highly effective.

Not that light, the 360 deployment platform made it heavy
Pak 36 combat weight 721 pounds could be repositioned by the crew

Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-299-1831-26%2C_Nordfrankreich%2C_Soldaten_mit_Gesch%C3%BCtz.jpg

2 pdr QF weight 1795

The_British_Army_in_the_United_Kingdom_1939-45_H23836.jpg

Needed a Prime Mover

The main problem for the 2pdr, was it most had just AP ammo, that limited it's effect vs the Face Hardened plate the DAK had in NA, the APC rounds that would have been more effective, were in in theater til 1942.
Then compare with the US 37mm, based off the German piece, that had AP,APCBC, HE and Canister that was found very useful against the Japanese thru the War.

But for a more ideal multipurpose towed gun, would have gone with something like this

The 'Baby' 25 pounder at 2500 pounds, vs the near 1800 of the 2pdr QF.
This penetrates more armor, plus has useful ammo beside AP Shot, and was still moveable by Jeeps

starman · Jun 1, 2023

dubsar said:
I don't think that submarines on their own were very effective against a moving naval task force in WW II. Particular a task force containing carriers and supported by hundreds of land-based aircraft. The USN had ASDIC and had been getting British reports on how to fight submarines!

Submarines of all sides sank a lot of warships including the carriers Courageous, Ark Royal, Eagle, Wasp, Taiho and Shinano.

dubsar · Jun 1, 2023

starman said:
Submarines of all sides sank a lot of warships including the carriers Courageous, Ark Royal, Eagle, Wasp, Taiho and Shinano.

Of course, but an individual kill does not do much to a whole task force. That is the whole point of a task force: if one capital ship is sunk or disabled there are others. And at first glance Shinano was sunk while sailing with just three destroyers as escort and no regular aircraft on board.

In WW II submarines could sink or damage individual warships (especially if they were operating away from an all-arms task force) but not stop major task forces from going where they wanted to go, especially within range of land based aircraft. The idea that submarines could bottle up the Pacific Fleet in Pearl Harbour without any air attack on the islands (and without Japan even declaring war on the USA) is not plausible.

SOTG · Jun 1, 2023

starman said:
They had no choice. Taking the Dutch east indies while leaving the Philippines in US hands would've been too risky. Had the US entered the war it would've been easy to interdict Japanese tankers and freighters plying the route between the DEE and Japan. Japan couldn't leave the phillipines in the possession of a hostile power--and the US had already made it clear it opposed japanese expansionism.

Absolutely it was a huge risk to leave Philippines in US hands on their flank without attacking first.

But it was an enormous risk to attack the US without warning and make the US population furious.

Moral is to the physical as 3 to 1 (AFAIK this is attributed to Napoleon)
I just can't see the US being as united and resolved to bear any price
if they were fighting for Dutch and British colonies.

Leftyhunter · Jun 1, 2023

SSDD said:
And somewhat zero tactical sense also.

Japan wanted to deliver a crippling blow to US navy by attacking Pearl Harbour.

But they themselves forgot how they themselves were able to refloat and repair sunken Russian warships in Port Arthur in 1904-1905 war. They also saw Italians were refloating and repairing their damaged, sunken ships in Taranto. Still they chose to attack Pearl Habour. As such, most of the damaged and sunken ships were refloated, repaired and returned to service.

A more wise decision would be to send carrier battle group to attack British fleet off Singapore and send submarines to block entrance of Pearl Habour to prevent US navy from going to join war.

In addition, even if Japanese had to really attack Pearl Habour, they could've attacked Midway island on their return journey if their carrier battle group had few troop transport ships. They attempted that few months later and that ended disastrously.

Submarines can't block a port indefinitely and if confined to a small area are vunerable to enemy anti submarine warfare ships.
Leftyhunter

starman · Jun 2, 2023

dubsar said:
The idea that submarines could bottle up the Pacific Fleet in Pearl Harbour without any air attack on the islands (and without Japan even declaring war on the USA) is not plausible.

The Japanese didn't think they could bottle up the Pacific fleet just cause enough losses to improve their chances, subsequently.

starman · Jun 2, 2023

SOTG said:
But it was an enormous risk to attack the US without warning and make the US population furious.

Sure but what if the carriers had been eliminated, and Japan didn't overextend itself in the solomons? At least one book argued that it's fallacious to think Japan was doomed the minute PH occurred.

SOTG said:
Moral is to the physical as 3 to 1 (AFAIK this is attributed to Napoleon)
I just can't see the US being as united and resolved to bear any price
if they were fighting for Dutch and British colonies.

Look at the gulf war of '91. Did Saddam attack the US? The public swallowed the government's pretexts hook, line and sinker…

dubsar · Jun 2, 2023

starman said:
Look at the gulf war of '91. Did Saddam attack the US? The public swallowed the government's pretexts hook, line and sinker…

The Gulf War was over in a few months (with a few weeks of fighting), was fought with an all-volunteer force, and resulted in few coalition dead and no need for disruptive tax increases or mobilization of the economy. Not a good analogy for a US-Japanese war circa 1941!

Anyone who says "inevitable" is selling something but Japan's long-term prospects after Pearl Harbour did not look good. US war production surprised everyone but Japan was at war with every major Pacific power but the USSR and had attacked the USSR repeatedly.

Leftyhunter · Jun 2, 2023

dubsar said:
The Gulf War was over in a few months (with a few weeks of fighting), was fought with an all-volunteer force, and resulted in few coalition dead and no need for disruptive tax increases or mobilization of the economy. Not a good analogy for a US-Japanese war circa 1941!

Anyone who says "inevitable" is selling something but Japan's long-term prospects after Pearl Harbour did not look good. US war production surprised everyone but Japan was at war with every major Pacific power but the USSR and had attacked the USSR repeatedly.

Actually Admiral Yamamoto visited the US in the 1920s and tried but failed to convince Tojo and other Japanese top leaders of America's industrial might. Yamamoto even told them he would win victories for the first six months but after that no guarantees.
Leftyhunter

SSDD · Jun 2, 2023

starman said:
At least one was a total loss and crippling others at least bought Japan some time. Japan btw was unlucky in that the carriers weren't present at PH at the time.

The USN rightly got priority. The IJN did in fact send plenty of submarines to Hawaiian waters, with the expectation they would do more damage over time than the initial strike. They could've bagged one or more carriers and refloated battleships on their way back to the states. But they only got a few merchantmen and damaged Saratoga.

Considering Japanese naval aviation was superior than US's till 1943, a full scale naval battle like Battle of Leyte Gulf when US Navy attempts to stop Japanese from invading Philippines in February/March of 1942 would result in decisive Japanese victory. Such a defeat would cripple US navy for months if not years as it would be fought iin high seas so no chance of refloating sunken ships and Japanese using B6N Kates to attack with only torpedoes which are far more reliable than 800 kg converted naval shells used in Pearl Harbour.

Imagine, Japanese career battlegroup is positioned in Hainan in December, 1941. Japanese launch bomber raids on Philippines and Singapore as they did and start simultaneous invasion of Thailand and British Malaya with Thailand quickly switching side. Both US and Britain declare war on Japan in protest of Japanese bombing. British Force Z is sunk by Japanese land-based bombers. Kido Butai then sails towards Singapore and inflicts a crushing defeat to British and Dutch navy as the latter two are without carrier arm like in reality, then is resupplied to support invasion of Philippines. Meanwhile US navy sails from Pearl Harbour to stop invasion of Philippines. As US still didn't know about A6M zero's vulnerabilities and US dive and torpedo bomber force still had Vindicator and Devastator aircraft (lots of destroyed aircraft in Pearl Harbour were these 2 so you can assume if no Pearl Harbour attack then those aircrafts would be sent to US carriers), this battle happens around Philippines in February or March of 1942, US navy is defeated by Japan's superior naval aviation and night fighting tactics.

Now what?

starman · Jun 3, 2023

dubsar said:
The Gulf War was over in a few months (with a few weeks of fighting), was fought with an all-volunteer force, and resulted in few coalition dead and no need for disruptive tax increases or mobilization of the economy. Not a good analogy for a US-Japanese war circa 1941!

I meant the US was quite capable of going to war without being attacked. Unlike Japan, Iraq may have seemed a pushover prior to the war, but not everyone was convinced a conflict would be the walkover it turned out to be. It wasn't uncommon to see estimates of 10k-20k American lives lost. Yet the government was still able to launch it.

dubsar said:
Anyone who says "inevitable" is selling something but Japan's long-term prospects after Pearl Harbour did not look good. US war production surprised everyone but Japan was at war with every major Pacific power but the USSR and had attacked the USSR repeatedly.

Sure but "every major pacific power" was also at war with then reich which gave the Japanese grounds for hope.

starman · Jun 3, 2023

SSDD said:
Considering Japanese naval aviation was superior than US's till 1943, a full scale naval battle like Battle of Leyte Gulf when US Navy attempts to stop Japanese from invading Philippines in February/March of 1942 would result in decisive Japanese victory. Such a defeat would cripple US navy for months if not years as it would be fought iin high seas so no chance of refloating sunken ships and Japanese using B6N Kates to attack with only torpedoes which are far more reliable than 800 kg converted naval shells used in Pearl Harbour.

Imagine, Japanese career battlegroup is positioned in Hainan in December, 1941. Japanese launch bomber raids on Philippines and Singapore as they did and start simultaneous invasion of Thailand and British Malaya with Thailand quickly switching side. Both US and Britain declare war on Japan in protest of Japanese bombing. British Force Z is sunk by Japanese land-based bombers. Kido Butai then sails towards Singapore and inflicts a crushing defeat to British and Dutch navy as the latter two are without carrier arm like in reality, then is resupplied to support invasion of Philippines. Meanwhile US navy sails from Pearl Harbour to stop invasion of Philippines. As US still didn't know about A6M zero's vulnerabilities and US dive and torpedo bomber force still had Vindicator and Devastator aircraft (lots of destroyed aircraft in Pearl Harbour were these 2 so you can assume if no Pearl Harbour attack then those aircrafts would be sent to US carriers), this battle happens around Philippines in February or March of 1942, US navy is defeated by Japan's superior naval aviation and night fighting tactics.

Now what?

Very interesting, but if the US declared war in December even without being attacked then, would the USN wait until February or March to go into action? Why wait until after allied navies are beaten; why not try to take on the Kido Butai after it comes back from Singapore or before it is resupplied?

sparky · Jun 3, 2023

There is the problem of how long submarines can reach and stay on station , three thousands miles from their bases
same for the Kido butai 1st air fleet or the battleships of the combined fleet , the whole Japanese doctrine was for the great battle where the bulk of Japan fleet would destroy the main enemy fleet
no long protracted war , just a one king hit deciding the war outcome .

this didn't please the US Navy God Emperor admiral King , he didn't want a big loosing battle , he wanted a big winning one
which mean time , a lot of time
rather than going all enthusiastic bushy tailed after the Imperial fleet , he choose a defensive posture ( as far as he could )
waiting for the US industry to crank up the planes and ships he deemed necessary to trash the Japanese
the CV-9 CV-10 and CV-11 were already contracted and were on the slipways , eight more carriers were ordered , the planes and pilots had to be found and trained
while Yamamoto was waiting to pounce , King was building the most awesome forces the world had ever seen
the midday operation was designed to lure the US Navy to battle , hopefully to cripple it ,
no cigar , a serie of accident made it turn up the other way , .... luck was definitely giving a passionate kiss to Nimitz
the rest is statistical , the Japanese were grinned down , crushed and became sea bottom decoration

SSDD · Jun 3, 2023

starman said:
Very interesting, but if the US declared war in December even without being attacked then, would the USN wait until February or March to go into action? Why wait until after allied navies are beaten; why not try to take on the Kido Butai after it comes back from Singapore or before it is resupplied?

US bases in Philippines still get bombed.

US navy in Pearl Harbour was not battle ready, US carriers were also scattered. It would take time before the entire fleet is concentrated in Pearl Harbour and made battle ready. So delay.

Leftyhunter · Dec 6, 2024

This is how impressive the Japanese Navy was against the mainland US. One Japanese submarine managed to bombard an oil storage facility at Goleta, California in 1942 causing minor damage as most of its shells missed. A woman living at San Marcos Pass actually called the police as she observed the submarine a mile away using her binoculars. The sub submerged and disappeared long before the Coast Guard could arrive.
Leftyhunter

starman · Dec 7, 2024

Leftyhunter said:
This is how impressive the Japanese Navy was against the mainland US. One Japanese submarine managed to bombard an oil storage facility at Goleta, California in 1942

IIRC it was the I-25. It wasn't effective against the US mainland-nor were balloon bombs later in the war. It's interesting, though, that Akahito and Boyd wrote that the IJN should've sent all its large or I subs to the US West coast in the first 13 months of the war. Among other things threy might've bagged some of the BBs from PH after they were raised and sent home for repairs.

Mach2 · Dec 7, 2024

starman said:
Sure but what if the carriers had been eliminated, and Japan didn't overextend itself in the solomons? At least one book argued that it's fallacious to think Japan was doomed the minute PH occurred.

Look at the gulf war of '91. Did Saddam attack the US? The public swallowed the government's pretexts hook, line and sinker…

That is a false equivalency.

First of all, the scale of the two situations is not even remotely comparable. Desert Shield, and subsequently Desert Storm, did not require conscription or a complete mobilization to a wartime economy. Beyond that, while the operations were led and substantially supplied by the US, there was overwhelming approval for a specific set of goals by the United Nations members.

Japan was doomed from 7 December, 1941. It was merely a question of how long it took. Any book that says otherwise if fantasyland, IMO.

The disparity in manpower, resources and industrial capacity were too large for Japan as long as the US resolve was maintained.

Chlodio · Dec 7, 2024

Mach2 said:
The disparity in manpower, resources and industrial capacity were too large for Japan as long as the US resolve was maintained.

True, but that's what Japan banked on - that US resolve would fail as the US fought its way through the central Pacific. Japan planned on the US suffering high casualties invading all of those islands so that the US would negotiate a peace with Japan still holding onto more islands than they had started with. Japan would have been quite happy if the US had captured the Solomon, Gilbert, Marshal, and Mariana Islands if Japan could still keep the Dutch East Indies and the Philippines. The real question is, 'Was there ever a realistic chance that US resolve would fail?'

Search

Search

MHow impressive were the Japanese campaigns (41-42) ?

starman

dubsar

marathag

starman

dubsar

SOTG

Leftyhunter

starman

starman

dubsar

Leftyhunter

SSDD

starman

starman

sparky

SSDD

Leftyhunter

starman

Mach2

Chlodio

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions