Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by PlatinumRice, Nov 9, 2012.
I believe they had more American POWs just from the Philippines. I'm too lazy to research it though.
if they then bombed the panama canal, they would have been in a very bad situation. the japanese could have bombed their cities and they could have done nothing about it.
Like hell they would have. The only thing America would have accepted was complete and utter Japanese defeat.
With what??? Do you even understand the distances involved?
If not for tentacle porn and vending machines for used panties... Japan would have persevered.
A lot was due to the neglect the IJN paid to convoy duty and merchant defense in general. In 1943 they finally decided to form a section responsible for merchant marine protection. It's staff? Two junior officers.
Well - they could. Now the matter of getting is light enough...
Agree. Same for Germany vs. Russia in the Eastern Front. Russia was able to get more men, more tanks, more weapons after the first few years plus Hitler's many miscalculations/mistakes did not help.
lulz, they would be hunted down. Wars are won on the back of logistics. And Japan just didn't have the logistics in its favour.
Say they managed to take out San Francisco, so what? That does not a war win. USA doesn't even have to drop the nukes to win the war. It was just the least expensive in terms of American lives.
Nothing they could do about it? First they only built a small handful if I-400s and they could only hold 3 aircraft each. Not exactly an overwhelming force. Furthermore the Aichi M6A was not really built for mixing it up in the air so, once intercepted, it stood little chance.
Its maximum loadout was around 1800lbs. Thats about 8,000lbs too light for an atomic weapon of that era and such a small conventional bomb loadout wasnt going to affect the war really in any way
Hey - I am not saying they could have won the war - just that they had ways to bomb the US. I am also not saying that any type of successful bombing campaign could have been waged
6 deaths from Japanese bombing in Oregon
That is not bombing, that is just harassment.
This is bombing
What are you talking about? Thats a success rate of about 0.06%!
Joking aside I do find the project rather fascinating for the mere fact that there was any success at all from launching a balloon in Japan, having is make its own, unguided way across the pacific and actually exploding somewhere in the United States
I think people forget that the firebombing of Tokyo killed more than the Nagasaki atomic bomb. The 'inhumane' claim for the use of atomic weapons completely ingores what was being done to the other Japanese cities without the use of atomic weapons. The same might hold true for the conventional bombing of Dresden as well
yeah, firebombing is a lot more cruel than nukes. If the nukes were not used, the firebombing would eventually destroy all major Japanese cities.
In 1941 battleships were still considered the most important ships in the US Navy.
Had the attack proceeded as planned the US would have had no effective fighting force in the Pacific after the strike on Pearl. The West coast and Panama canal would have been open to attack with minimal resistance and warning during the first half of 1942. At best this would add several years to the timeframe required to defeat Japan or at worst locked the US out of the Pacific.
1) There would have been a severe shortage of carriers in the Pacific if any at all. The Battle of the Coral Sea and Midway illustrates how paranoid the navy was of loosing any carriers during 1942. Essex was the only carrier commissioned in 1942 with the bulk following in 1943 and 44. Had the Navy lost the ones they had at Pearl or in early 1942 Hawaii, the Aleutians, and Panama would have immediately been vulnerable. The West coast would have obviously been attacked as well with more than a token naval and air force.
2) If the Navy did not have the ability to repair damaged ships for return to west coast yards or to even refuel the ones that could the Pacific Fleet would have ceased to exist operationally. You might be able to tanker in more fuel on a regular basis but given the severe tanker shortage that almost cost the Allies the war in 1942 courtesy the Kriegsmarine I wouldn't have made any bets. The battleships also would not have been readily available for landing support since they had to be patched up/refuled and sent stateside for major repair.
3) There were four subs on the morning of the attack. One of them holds the record for most number of Japanese ships sank by a submarine and put more tonnage on the bottom than most of the ships moored at battleship row. The others were valuable recon platforms.
There would have been a narrow opportunity to compel the US to sue for peace during 1942 had the plan worked. Yamomoto knew full well he was rolling the dice.
That's one lesson the Japanese learned ahead of us. Battleships were not much more than expensive (and very vulnerable) mobile artillery except for some of the Guadalcanal campaign when there were no carriers available. The attack on Peal disabused the US Navy immediately of the fantasy of WWI like naval combat.
Biological and chemical warfare would have been options. Given what they did to the Chinese I would have considered it a real possibility if Hawaii fell and we didn't make a deal since there would be no way to meaningfully retaliate.
err, no. USA would never have accepted that. The leadership was chomping at joining the war, it was just the people they had problem convincing. The Pearl Harbor attack provided that impetus.
It would have been far costlier and taken years longer, but Japan would have lost at the end, and probably would have lost 60% of its population in the process.
Well - the I-400 wasn't ready until '44. I think Hawaii was safe by then
As for invading Hawaii - I really don't think there was much danger there. They struggled to take Wake and, as shown by IJN Navy Captain Kami Shigenori's study, the logistics of supplying an occupied Hawaii would be difficult to say the least (Even without American interference)
Probably would have just converted some obsolete subs and sent them on one way trips.
Hawaii wouldn't have to necessarily invaded, just cut off and rendered unusable. Establish an air base on one of the smaller islands to suppress naval traffic.
That airfield still has to 1) Be large enough to fend off attacks from the US and 2) Be supplied 3) completely destroy the other airfields 4) prevent the airfields from being rebuilt 5) prevent reinforcements from arriving [And keep in mind the US reinforcements had much less distance to cover] 6) be defended from the USN. Land based air was not exceptionally effective against surface ships. Maybe if the US carriers were destroyed but then there are going to be a shit ton of ifs involved in this initial plan
if the Japanese decide to risk a logistical nightmare to invade Hawaii
if they decide to pull troops from other theaters
if they decide to commit to a long term drain on their already strained merchant marine
if they send the transports out earlier or set sail earlier and at slower speeds
if they choose to risk the much larger chances of detection with the larger slower fleet
if they choose to bank on guaranteed destruction of the US carrier fleet
if they remain undetected
if they are completely successful in getting the US carriers
if they choose to close with the remaining US fleet after the strike
if they they destroy the airfields
if the fleet stays in the area to prevent counter attack by the USN
if they can prevent reinforcements from arriving by air
if they can remain supplied
Land based aircraft could have kept the Japanese navy off the west coast until new ships were build. If Germany couldn't defeat Britain, there no way Japan is carrying over enough planes, bombs and fuel to gain air superiority over the US west coast.
They didn't have enough fuel to sustain the supply chain, let along mount a campaign.
Time to load up Civ 2 and see what happens