Japan could have won WW2

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by PlatinumRice, Nov 9, 2012.

  1. iamwiz82

    iamwiz82 Lifer

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2001
    Messages:
    30,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe they had more American POWs just from the Philippines. I'm too lazy to research it though.
     
  2. PlatinumRice

    PlatinumRice Senior member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2012
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  3. PieIsAwesome

    PieIsAwesome Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    Messages:
    4,055
    Likes Received:
    0
    Like hell they would have. The only thing America would have accepted was complete and utter Japanese defeat.
     
  4. sdifox

    sdifox No Lifer

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    61,640
    Likes Received:
    77

    With what??? Do you even understand the distances involved? :rolleyes:
     
  5. iamwiz82

    iamwiz82 Lifer

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2001
    Messages:
    30,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    If not for tentacle porn and vending machines for used panties... Japan would have persevered.
     
  6. Exterous

    Exterous Lifer

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2006
    Messages:
    14,164
    Likes Received:
    50
    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...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400_class_submarine
     
  7. Svnla

    Svnla Lifer

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2003
    Messages:
    13,046
    Likes Received:
    16

    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.
     
    #57 Svnla, Nov 9, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2012
  8. sdifox

    sdifox No Lifer

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    61,640
    Likes Received:
    77
    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.
     
  9. Exterous

    Exterous Lifer

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2006
    Messages:
    14,164
    Likes Received:
    50
    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
     
    #59 Exterous, Nov 9, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2012
  10. Exterous

    Exterous Lifer

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2006
    Messages:
    14,164
    Likes Received:
    50
    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

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_balloon

    6 deaths from Japanese bombing in Oregon
     
  11. sdifox

    sdifox No Lifer

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    61,640
    Likes Received:
    77
    #61 sdifox, Nov 9, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2012
  12. Exterous

    Exterous Lifer

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2006
    Messages:
    14,164
    Likes Received:
    50
    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
     
  13. Exterous

    Exterous Lifer

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2006
    Messages:
    14,164
    Likes Received:
    50
    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
     
  14. sdifox

    sdifox No Lifer

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    61,640
    Likes Received:
    77
    yeah, firebombing is a lot more cruel than nukes. If the nukes were not used, the firebombing would eventually destroy all major Japanese cities.
     
  15. benzylic

    benzylic Golden Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Messages:
    1,547
    Likes Received:
    0
    In 1941 battleships were still considered the most important ships in the US Navy.
     
  16. K1052

    K1052 Lifer

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Messages:
    22,298
    Likes Received:
    3
    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.
     
    #66 K1052, Nov 9, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2012
  17. K1052

    K1052 Lifer

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Messages:
    22,298
    Likes Received:
    3
    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.
     
  18. K1052

    K1052 Lifer

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Messages:
    22,298
    Likes Received:
    3
    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.
     
  19. sdifox

    sdifox No Lifer

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    61,640
    Likes Received:
    77
    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.
     
    #69 sdifox, Nov 9, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2012
  20. Exterous

    Exterous Lifer

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2006
    Messages:
    14,164
    Likes Received:
    50
    Well - the I-400 wasn't ready until '44. I think Hawaii was safe by then :p

    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)
     
  21. K1052

    K1052 Lifer

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Messages:
    22,298
    Likes Received:
    3
    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.
     
  22. Exterous

    Exterous Lifer

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2006
    Messages:
    14,164
    Likes Received:
    50
    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
     
  23. JTsyo

    JTsyo Lifer

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2007
    Messages:
    10,080
    Likes Received:
    8
    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.
     
  24. sdifox

    sdifox No Lifer

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    61,640
    Likes Received:
    77
    They didn't have enough fuel to sustain the supply chain, let along mount a campaign.
     
  25. Pray To Jesus

    Pray To Jesus Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2011
    Messages:
    3,642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Time to load up Civ 2 and see what happens