War Topic: what would YOU have done re Pearl Harbor?

[Zayphod]

There was a recent discussion here about an historian on PBS and his ideas regarding what the IJN was going to do. Along with a suggestion that they invade Hawaii, etc, and the suggestion that they hold it in order to cause the US to beg for peace.

Now, all the political discussions aside, if YOU were in charge of the Japanese fleet, and committed to making the first stike on Pearl, how would YOU have followed-up on that attack, i.e., send in another wave of bombers, send in an invasion force, take over Midway (or invade/hold Midway AND Hawaii)?

So as a strategy game, how would YOU have brought the US Navy to it's knees? Remember, the first strike already took place - you're committed now to either win greatly, or die in an atomic fireball.

No pressure.

[SUBMAN1]

I think Japan would have had they found the AMerican carriers. THe fact that they didn't at the time of the attack probably made them a little leary about hanging around waiting for them to counter attack.

I think what we had here was a classic case of fog of war.

-S

[STEED]

US to beg for peace.

Never would of happen even if it went all Japans way, America would recover and fight back.

[SUBMAN1]

US to beg for peace.
Never would of happen even if it went all Japans way, America would recover and fight back.

That would be true. Most of the US is a proud nation so I doubt that would even happen today, given more equal military terms such as found back then.

-S

[Zayphod]

US to beg for peace.
Never would of happen even if it went all Japans way, America would recover and fight back.

That would be true. Most of the US is a proud nation so I doubt that would even happen today, given more equal military terms such as found back then.

-S

Good point - as I run this scene in my head, I see Japan sending in an invasion force to take Hawaii, and another force taking Midway, securing their ports and bases for use by the IJN. Using them as a base, the only thing the US would have left would be to use carriers to transport planes into the battlefield to try to take Hawaii back.

My point was that it would have been 10 times harder for the US to recover had Hawaii been taken and held.

I agree with you, however, that the US would have never begged for peace. It just would have taken much longer (I think) for the US to have won the war in the Pacific had they lost Hawaii from the get-go.

[joea]

Well the Nihon Kaigun site has a good article explaining why it would have been almost impossible for Japan to put together a force to invade Hawaii.


http://www.combinedfleet.com/pearlops.htm

[Skybird]

Probably no matter what Japan would have or could have done, in the end the constant shifting of balance in favour of the immense industrial potential of the US would have decided it all against japan. I am sure that JDR was convinced to win it from the very beginning. For those Japanese knowing America, it must have been clear from the beginning that they were starting a desperate fight for pure survival. In the movie "Tora Tora Tora", Yamato is presented as a commander who knew this very well. Without trying to brake the American strangling of Japan's need for oil, it also would have been a desperate situation for Japan. So they were damned when striking Pearl, and were damned if not striking Pearl.

I belong to those people thinking that JDR knew all this very well, and saw this as the needed key event to get the war-antipathic US (the population) into the war in Europe, which until Pearl Harbour was no popular option.

What I would have done as Japanese commander after the strike on Pearl? The movie paints it like the commander wanting to preserve the Japanese fleet for the war that just had been launched by hurting the awakling giant. In principle that was right, and there was not much meaning in going to possess Hawai, strategically, it would have left the Japanese wih too much space and too long supply lines to cover, imo. But i would have stayed a while in the region, trying to find and sink the missing carriers, before heading West again.

[Zayphod]

Well the Nihon Kaigun site has a good article explaining why it would have been almost impossible for Japan to put together a force to invade Hawaii.


http://www.combinedfleet.com/pearlops.htm

Thanks for that link, very interesting read.

Based on the information I just read, Japan seemed to have jumped the gun, starting this war a tad too soon, then, since they didn't have the resources to subdue and hold Hawaii.

As an alternative, a carrier could have been stationed near enough to launch an occasional attack on Pearl during the repair process, keeping the base unusable for the US. Failing that, it seems they sealed their own fate when they attacked, and then left us to repair, rebuild, and come back at them.

My main question though, is what could have been done differently, i.e, wait a few more months until an invasion COULD have been made, etc? I realize that the further out the IJN extended itself from home base, the more difficult it is to hold on to stuff.

[Zayphod]

What I would have done as Japanese commander after the strike on Pearl? The movie paints it like the commander wanting to preserve the Japanese fleet for the war that just had been launched by hurting the awakling giant. In principle that was right, and there was not much meaning in going to possess Hawai, strategically, it would have left the Japanese wih too much space and too long supply lines to cover, imo. But i would have stayed a while in the region, trying to find and sink the missing carriers, before heading West again.

I'd agree with that tactic. There's not a lot of bases in the Pacific, so carriers were the most important thing out there. Losing them would be costly. Perhaps Silent Hunter X will have the option to make it go either way, unless there's already a game out there that does this.

[STEED]

Were the Japanese so full of themselves to think they could win a war against America? I don't think so, there aim was to deliver a blow that would slow down there entry in to the war and full offensive operations but bad luck hit Japan at Peal as the American carriers were at sea and at Midway even more bad luck.

It seems to me the Japanese wanted to dig in hard on what they captured and after some bitter fighting and heavy loses to America they would sit down and draw up some treaty, granted that is a what if scenario. From the American point of view there would be no such thing and they would fight on and defeat Japan which attacked them and started the war.

[DeepIron]

This may be a bit OT, but I thought I'd share it with you...

My grandfather, who is 93 and in excellent shape, was a Radioman 2nd class on a DE with the carrier group that was returning to Pearl. I asked him when I saw him last year, "Why were the carriers late in getting to Pearl?" I've always been curious about this...

He said that they had hit some heavy weather and reduced speed because some of the smaller vessels were not making headway. The task force slowed appreciably, I can't remember the exact speed he told me, and hence were a day late in returning to Pearl.

He said as they steamed into the harbor that the men stood dumbfounded at the railings, staring at the carnage, not a word was spoken...

My Grandfather then told me, it was like everyone became of one mind, one resolve... The Japanese were going to get a pay back...

Were the Japanese so full of themselves to think they could win a war against America? I don't think so...
Adm Yamamoto said in his personal notes that he expected the IJN to "run free" through the Pacific for maybe two years, then the American forces would start to take control and eventually defeat them.

[micky1up]

the IJN made a fatal mistake they should have remained in place off pearl harbour untill they got the carriers they came for the carrier force commander made this mistake and it cost japan the war maybe an invasion of the island would have achieve similar results but it wasnt a time for half measures

[Tchocky]

Rig ship for dive, and the USS SUBSIM sails for Tokyo, fisticuffs may ensue.

Ah, I've no idea what I'd do, if I ended up in US command something would have had gone dreadfully wrong along the line :)

[Skybird]

the IJN made a fatal mistake they should have remained in place off pearl harbour untill they got the carriers they came for the carrier force commander made this mistake and it cost japan the war maybe an invasion of the island would have achieve similar results but it wasnt a time for half measures

It was not really a mistake of the Japanese: their plan intended to kill the battleships, heavy cruisers and carriers indeed. It's just that luck plays a role in war, and the carriers shortly before had left the harbour, and their return was delayed, which saved them from being in place when the Japanese hammer fell down. The Japanese expected them to be there, and planned to kill them, but had no chance to know of the carriers having left shortly before. there were several occaisons were bad luck and coincidence massively messed up the war from a Japanese perspective, especially during Midway and the way in which the Japanese carriers got lost. Several air attack waves of the americans went very badly before, and costed the Navy alost all participating airplanes withoiut sinking a single destroyer, and then all changed completely within just three minutes due to the constant changing of armament of the Japanese planes wich led to all that explosives on deck when by random chance (more or less) a new wave of bombers arrived, and destroyed three? four? carriers. A chain of extremly unlucky coincidences (from a Japanese perspective, for it meant the turning point in the war).

[joea]

My main question though, is what could have been done differently, i.e, wait a few more months until an invasion COULD have been made, etc? I realize that the further out the IJN extended itself from home base, the more difficult it is to hold on to stuff.

I don't know, to my mind the big thing is getting the troops needed to do the job. Japan could not run a land war in Asia, especially China, watch the Red Bear (still a worry from my reading both the USSR and Japan kept forces in the Far East despite the Non-aggression pact). The Army refused troops for a Navy idea to invade Australia.

[Chock]

If we look at the big picture, the sanctions being imposed on Japan by America - which to some extent forced their hand into military action against the US - could really only have meant one thing: The Japanese had to deliver a knockout blow to the US military's ability to wage war across the Pacific, therefore, the carriers had to be the primary target, which of course they were supposed to be. This really was the only chance for Japan to force an agreeable settlement from the US with regard to America's trade embargo and blockading efforts on them.

With the massive industrial base that the US was able to muster, victory in a protracted war was of course a near certainty for the US, although it was certainly going to cost many lives too.

So, if we were doing it all again for the Land of the Rising Sun, then a follow up attack on the carriers (or better intelligence so the first attack hit them) would be the way to go, the threat of further action on the US mainland being all that would be necessary for a favourable negotiation and an end to the conflict before the US could start churning out B-29s at the rate of one every three hours, or whatever it was they managed by 1945 (something close to that I seem to recall).

And here's one for all you fascinating fact fans: The guy who planned the attack on Pearl Harbor - General Minoru Genda - visited California in 1959 to test fly the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter, as Japan were considering it for the soon to be formed Japanese Self Defence Force (i.e. the 'no, we're not going to attack anyone force'). Japan subsequently bought the Starfighter, and it was produced under license by Mitsubishi in 1960, yup, the same company that built the A6M Zero-Sen fighter that took part in the Pearl Harbor attack. This following, Genda's rcommendation that the F-104 was 'The best fighter in the world'. As a result, Genda was awarded the United States Air Force Legion of Merit! Just shows you what a bit of business can do for things, doesn't it?

:D Chock

[Sailor Steve]

Off topic, but I have to:

I once heard a lecturer state that Japan's biggest mistake was in not investigating the American character enough. He pointed out all the movies (actually only one, I think) in which a Japanese leader of one sort or another says "Yes, I attended the university at Berkeley (Yale, Harvard, fill-in-the-blank) and Americans are soft and eager to please."

He then pointed out that if they had visited someplace like Georgia or Alabama, "Where people keep their relatives chained up in the basement", they might have thought twice before attacking us.:rotfl:

[Etienne]

Just taking out the fuel dumps at Pearl would have been a cost efficient way to increase the impact the attack had on the US Navy...

[CB..]

i might have sailed the entire strike force into the entrance of Pearl harbour...scuttled the fleet.....then surrendered/negotiated for peace... hoping that that utterly bizaare act might have had some sort of impact on the world stage...course it might have helped if the damn declaration of war had arrived on time ...

[Letum]

Even if the IJN had destroyed every ship in the American fleet, they would have still had a hard time with the out-dated IJA.

I would have just spent more time consolidating and/or expanding the territory gains in
the west if I had only military motivations.


it might have helped if the damn declaration of war had arrived on time ...
It didn't?

My info source is totally unreliable, but it informed me that the declaration was sent and arrived in the USA
before the attack, but did not arrive in Washington and was not translated and read until after the attack had started.
Is there any truth in this?

[DeepIron]

Is there any truth in this?

This is from the Wikipedia and is indeed factual:

"In the days before the attack, a long 14-part message was sent to the Embassy from the Foreign Office in Toyko (encrypted with the Type 97 cryptographic machine, in a cipher named Purple by U.S. cryptanalysts), with instructions to deliver it to Secretary of State, Cordell Hull at 1 p.m. Washington time. The last part arrived late Saturday night (Washington time) but due to decryption and typing delays, and to Tokyo's failure to stress the crucial necessity of the timing, her Embassy personnel did not deliver the message breaking off negotiations to Secretary Hull until several hours after the attack."

The fact that the Japanese were unable to deliver the message until several hours after the attack only further incensed the American public. They not considered the event to be a "sneak attack" without formal declaration of war...

[Letum]

Is there any truth in this?

This is from the Wikipedia and is indeed factual:

"In the days before the attack, a long 14-part message was sent to the Embassy from the Foreign Office in Toyko (encrypted with the Type 97 cryptographic machine, in a cipher named Purple by U.S. cryptanalysts), with instructions to deliver it to Secretary of State, Cordell Hull at 1 p.m. Washington time. The last part arrived late Saturday night (Washington time) but due to decryption and typing delays, and to Tokyo's failure to stress the crucial necessity of the timing, her Embassy personnel did not deliver the message breaking off negotiations to Secretary Hull until several hours after the attack."

The fact that the Japanese were unable to deliver the message until several hours after the attack only further incensed the American public. They not considered the event to be a "sneak attack" without formal declaration of war...

I don't quite follow that.
Just to be clear:
did the decleration enter US soil/US embassy soil in a un-translated, non-decrypted
state before the attack?

If so, how long did the US have to translate and/or decode the message?

[DeepIron]

did the decleration enter US soil/US embassy soil in a un-translated, non-decrypted state before the attack?

Yes. However, the last part of the 14 part message arrived late Saturday night at the Japanese Embassy.

If so, how long did the US have to translate and/or decode the message?
American intelligence had been intercepting coded Japanese transmissions prior to the Pearl Harbor attack for some time. However, this particular transmission was in 14 parts and although US intelligence had some conviction of an impending attack, they didn't have the precise date.
At one point US Intelligence thought the attack was going to be 1 week earlier than planned. When it didn't happen, and because the Japanese Ambassador was still carrying on "in good faith" talks with Cordell Hull, the military "stood down" and relaxed its vigilance.

[Skybird]

The declaration was delivered to the Americans in a translated state by the Japanese. They planned to give it only very short before the strike would take place, so that the attack would take place so short after the official declaration of a state of war that the americans had no long time to react to that declaration, and prepare. Thus the timing. The delay in the japanese embassy in 1.) decyphering and b.) translating it into English, while they were not aware of the crucial urgency to get it delivered right on time, led to the declaration being delivered - after the attack had taken place.

To imagine that americans would have been less furious about the destruction of their pacific fleet when the declaration had reached them in time, before the strike on Pearl, is something I have problems with, but I always have problems with purely symbolic stuff. the whole thing is difficult for me to relive. also, american intel was very well aware of those mysterious messages in fourteen parts arriving at the Japanese embassy, and tried to decypher/translate some of it themselves. they knew that something was in the making, and by all reason should have known (I'm sure at least some authorities were aware indeed) that something like the war declaration was in the making. It's not that the hostilities came out of the blue. Hostilities had rasied before since weeks and months, due to the crucial oil supply situation for the Japanese, and the deadlock in negotiations.

[Letum]

Wasn't there something about the British telling the Americans about the attack weeks
before hand?
Or was that common knowledge?

[DeepIron]

To imagine that americans would have been less furious when the declaration had reached them in time, before the strike on Pearl, is something I have problems with.
You have to keep in mind that the American public wasn't as aware of the Japanese issue as was the military. We were already "fighting" (not officialy in the war yet) on another front and that kept a lot of people preoccupied.

Pearl Harbor was like a "sucker punch" to the American public. "Damn, he hit when I wasn't looking!" even though I knew I was going to be in a fight...

[TLAM Strike]

Drop bombs with poison gas all over hawaii until almost the entire population is dead, then invade. Use Pearl as a base to launch simalier attacks against the US West Coast to force the US not on a defensive of the Pacific but a defensive of its mainland. Imagain this going on the same time as Dumbeat in the Atlantic. :o

If I lost I would be hung for warcrimes but it might just suceed in adding a few years to the war just in time for all those fancy "wonder weapons" to show up in both theaters. At that point who know what why the war might go. :hmm:

[Letum]

Drop bombs with poison gas all over hawaii until almost the entire population is dead, then invade. Use Pearl as a base to launch simalier attacks against the US West Coast to force the US not on a defensive of the Pacific but a defensive of its mainland. Imagain this going on the same time as Dumbeat in the Atlantic. :o

If I lost I would be hung for warcrimes but it might just suceed in adding a few years to the war just in time for all those fancy "wonder weapons" to show up in both theaters. At that point who know what why the war might go. :hmm:

What do you do when/if you get naval control and dominance over costal, weststern America?

[Zayphod]

the IJN made a fatal mistake they should have remained in place off pearl harbour untill they got the carriers they came for the carrier force commander made this mistake and it cost japan the war maybe an invasion of the island would have achieve similar results but it wasnt a time for half measures

That was my take on the matter as well. They left the job half-done, and we all know how well that works, don't we?

They delivered a devistating blow to Pearl Harbor, but never completely destroyed it, and without a follow-up raid once-a-week to keep America from using it as a base, it eventually re-grew into a threat. Had they kept pounding on it (and eventually finding the other two carriers), things might have turned out differently.

Of course, the US would eventually have to chase the IJN away so Pearl could be re-built, but the US would have had to have carriers launching from as far away as the West Coast to do this. There really aren't any islands that could be used for bases other than Hawaii.

[TLAM Strike]

What do you do when/if you get naval control and dominance over costal, weststern America? Keep the remaineder of the US Fleet bottled up and take control of the Pacific. I wouldn't invade the US Mainland (Aside from the occasonal raid), and try to destroy as much of the US ship building on the west coast as possable.

[Zayphod]

Drop bombs with poison gas all over hawaii until almost the entire population is dead, then invade. Use Pearl as a base to launch simalier attacks against the US West Coast to force the US not on a defensive of the Pacific but a defensive of its mainland. Imagain this going on the same time as Dumbeat in the Atlantic. :o


See, that was my thinking as well (the holding Hawaii as a base, not the poison gas thing), since whoever holds it has a huge base at the half-way point across the Pacific. Look at why Hawaii was so important to the US, and you'd understand why it would have been just as important to the Japanese. With no refuling base anywhere decent in the Pacific, the US would have had to base their ships in San Francisco / Los Angeles until much, much later in the war.

Using Hawaii as a refuling point for their ships, the IJN could have pinned the US Navy back to the west coast (at least, until the industrial might of the US managed to re-build the fleet).

Interesting 'what if', isn't it?

What do you do when/if you get naval control and dominance over costal, weststern America? Keep the remaineder of the US Fleet bottled up and take control of the Pacific. I wouldn't invade the US Mainland (Aside from the occasonal raid), and try to destroy as much of the US ship building on the west coast as possable.

Agreed. Once pinned against the wall, rebuilding ships would have been much more difficult, and without carriers, we never could have re-taken Hawaii. Without Hawaii, no taking Midway, and without Midway, no other islands to the west. Sort of like chess, huh?

[fatty]

Blast Pearl and then keep going on to seize Panama.

[RickC Sniper]

It must have been hell for Yamamoto to be asked to start a war he himself felt could not be won.

I believe the decision makers in Japan hoped to grab control of the entire western Pacific rim, then sue for peace. They felt America as didn't want a war and didn't have the stomach for a long war.

I'd have stayed around Pearl long enough to find the American Carriers. That was crucial to the follow up of taking Midway.

@Sailor Steve that was hilarious.
:p

[Zayphod]

Just taking out the fuel dumps at Pearl would have been a cost efficient way to increase the impact the attack had on the US Navy...

Wow, excellent point. Can't run carriers on love.

[Letum]

Just taking out the fuel dumps at Pearl would have been a cost efficient way to increase the impact the attack had on the US Navy...
Wow, excellent point. Can't run carriers on love.
Not quite true.

In the late 1930's before the "hippys" ever got to hear about it, the US Navy and Army where
conducting experiments with "Flower" power as both a power plant for large ships and as
a explosive weapon of mass destruction.

The experiments stopped because the technology of the 1930s had not caught up to the
theory yet. When (perhaps in 10 years time) the technology is available for a flower
power WMD, it is estimated that the love from just one service man could be removed
and used to power a carrier for 2000 years or to create a bomb capable of killing everything
in a 500 mile radius from the impact point as well as expelling 5% of the earth's atmosphere
into space.

Such is the awsome destructive power of love.

[mookiemookie]

See, that was my thinking as well (the holding Hawaii as a base, not the poison gas thing), since whoever holds it has a huge base at the half-way point across the Pacific. Look at why Hawaii was so important to the US, and you'd understand why it would have been just as important to the Japanese. With no refuling base anywhere decent in the Pacific, the US would have had to base their ships in San Francisco / Los Angeles until much, much later in the war.

Using Hawaii as a refuling point for their ships, the IJN could have pinned the US Navy back to the west coast (at least, until the industrial might of the US managed to re-build the fleet).

Once pinned against the wall, rebuilding ships would have been much more difficult, and without carriers, we never could have re-taken Hawaii. Without Hawaii, no taking Midway, and without Midway, no other islands to the west. Sort of like chess, huh?
The Combined Fleet website addresses both of these points in a great way and presents a very strong argument, in my opinion, on why it just wouldn't be feasible. It can be found here:
http://www.combinedfleet.com/pearlops.htm

But in summary, there's no real way that the Japanese could have brought enough troops to take Hawaii, as it would have been defended by 75,000-100,000 US troops on the ground. Can you imagine trying to bring an invasion force all the way over from the home islands in numbers necessary to take the island? Don't forget that the Japanese still had their force in China to supply. They did not have an inexhausatble amount of troops to bring to bear on Hawaii. They just did not have the manpower to do it.

Part of Pearl Harbor's success is that it happened suddenly. A task force of carriers going 25-30 knots is a lot harder to find than a fleet of troop transports doing 10-15 knots. The surprise angle would have most likely been lost and the force would have come under attack before reaching Hawaii, and Pearl would have been ready.

Let's assume that they did take Hawaii. How would you keep it supplied? The Japanese couldn't even supply the garrison on Wake Island, how could they have kept men and materiel flowing to an occupying force the size needed to hold a major US possession like Hawaii? They were already working under a shipping shortage in trying to keep holdings in China, Malaysia and the Philippines supplied. Now you want to add Hawaii and its distance all the way across the Pacific into the mix? The transit time alone would exacerbate the situation. Empty ships travelling back from Hawaii are effectively out of service until they make their way back to the Home Islands.

As for the carrier aspect, Combined Fleet addresses it here: http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

In short, what it says is that the US could build carriers so quickly that they would have caught up with Japan in a relatively short amount of time. Midway and the Solomon Islands wouldn't have happened if we had lost the carriers at Pearl, but the pace at which we could have replaced those losses means that Japan would have bought themself time but that's it. They would have prolonged the war, but definately not have won it. Remember why we won the way we did: we outproduced the other side.

EDIT: Sorry...didn't realize joea had already posted this link. I still think it presents an excellent case though!

[sonar732]

With the IJN's familiar strategy of splitting their forces, I'm surprised that they didn't attack the west coast on the same day. How many carriers did the IJN have in late '41? Could've a carrier been placed at major shipbuilding/repair facilities at the same time? Besides the obvious fuel depots, they didn't touch the repair facilities that worked day in and day out during the war. Bremerton was utilized full throttle also.

[waste gate]

An American nuclear aircraft carrier and its crew are caught in a classic dilemma when a supernatural storm sends them back in time just before the Japanese assault on Pearl Harbour.

The USS Nimitz, a modern-day nuclear aircraft carrier, is drawn through a time warp from 1980 to a couple days before the Japanese assault on Pearl Harbor, and the crew must decide whether to launch a preemptive strike against the incoming Japanese carrier fleet with their more advanced air wing, or allow history to take its course, which might not happen since they had rescued Senator Chapman, who disappeared shortly before the attack, from his death.

It is 1980 and the USS Nimitz puts to sea off of Pearl Harbor for routine exercises. After encountering a strange storm and losing all contact with the US Pacific Fleet, nuclear war with the Soviet Union is assumed and the USS Nimitz arms herself for battle. However, after encountering Japanese Zero scout planes and finding Pearl Harbor filled with pre-World War II battleships, it is realized that the storm the Nimitz went through caused the ship to travel back in time: to December 6th, 1941.

[Takeda Shingen]

Blast Pearl and then keep going on to seize Panama.

Why? Pacific coast shipbuilding industries were more than sufficient to make up for the numbers lost in Pearl. Seizing Panama results in the taking of a relatively insignificant facility while dangerously overextending Japan's already overextended forces.

[sonar732]

An American nuclear aircraft carrier and its crew are caught in a classic dilemma when a supernatural storm sends them back in time just before the Japanese assault on Pearl Harbour.

The USS Nimitz, a modern-day nuclear aircraft carrier, is drawn through a time warp from 1980 to a couple days before the Japanese assault on Pearl Harbor, and the crew must decide whether to launch a preemptive strike against the incoming Japanese carrier fleet with their more advanced air wing, or allow history to take its course, which might not happen since they had rescued Senator Chapman, who disappeared shortly before the attack, from his death.

It is 1980 and the USS Nimitz puts to sea off of Pearl Harbor for routine exercises. After encountering a strange storm and losing all contact with the US Pacific Fleet, nuclear war with the Soviet Union is assumed and the USS Nimitz arms herself for battle. However, after encountering Japanese Zero scout planes and finding Pearl Harbor filled with pre-World War II battleships, it is realized that the storm the Nimitz went through caused the ship to travel back in time: to December 6th, 1941.

Awesome movie and makes you ponder what would you have done?

[sonar732]

Blast Pearl and then keep going on to seize Panama.

Why? Pacific coast shipbuilding industries were more than sufficient to make up for the numbers lost in Pearl. Seizing Panama results in the taking of a relatively insignificant facility while dangerously overextending Japan's already overextended forces.

Which brings us back to my question earlier about how many IJN carriers were in the current fleet Dec 6th, 1941?

[joea]

Again, from this superb site:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/cvlist.htm

6 large Fleet carriers of the Kido Butai (Akagi, Kaga, Shokaku, Zuikaku, Soryu, Hiryu) , plus 4 smaller ones, Ryujo, Shoho, Zuiho, and Taiyo (not to be confused with Taiho). All as of December 6 1941. Forget the smaller ones btw.

[TLAM Strike]

An American nuclear aircraft carrier and its crew are caught in a classic dilemma when a supernatural storm sends them back in time just before the Japanese assault on Pearl Harbour.

The USS Nimitz, a modern-day nuclear aircraft carrier, is drawn through a time warp from 1980 to a couple days before the Japanese assault on Pearl Harbor, and the crew must decide whether to launch a preemptive strike against the incoming Japanese carrier fleet with their more advanced air wing, or allow history to take its course, which might not happen since they had rescued Senator Chapman, who disappeared shortly before the attack, from his death.

It is 1980 and the USS Nimitz puts to sea off of Pearl Harbor for routine exercises. After encountering a strange storm and losing all contact with the US Pacific Fleet, nuclear war with the Soviet Union is assumed and the USS Nimitz arms herself for battle. However, after encountering Japanese Zero scout planes and finding Pearl Harbor filled with pre-World War II battleships, it is realized that the storm the Nimitz went through caused the ship to travel back in time: to December 6th, 1941.

I didn't you mention the title but its called "The Final Countdown".

[Jimbuna]

http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0080736/

[XabbaRus]

but the time vortex doesn't allow them to change history.

Tora Tora Tora is a great film and portrays the enemy intelligently without any stupid stereotypes.

I wonder if you could do a good remake of that. Maybe LOTR guy will after he does the "Dam Busters".

[Sailor Steve]

Why do a remake? The original is as near perfect as it can get.

[Tchocky]

Hey, Pearl Harbour was a good film :D

*runs, hides*

:p

[Zayphod]

With the IJN's familiar strategy of splitting their forces, I'm surprised that they didn't attack the west coast on the same day. How many carriers did the IJN have in late '41? Could've a carrier been placed at major shipbuilding/repair facilities at the same time? Besides the obvious fuel depots, they didn't touch the repair facilities that worked day in and day out during the war. Bremerton was utilized full throttle also.

My guess is that trying to send something that close to the mother ship (West Coast of the US) and keep it hidden would have been problematic, at best. The chances of being spotted are too great, and might have blown the cover off the impending Hawaii attack.

On the other hand, a simultanous attack on Midway might have helped.

[Zayphod]

Blast Pearl and then keep going on to seize Panama.

Why? Pacific coast shipbuilding industries were more than sufficient to make up for the numbers lost in Pearl. Seizing Panama results in the taking of a relatively insignificant facility while dangerously overextending Japan's already overextended forces.

I think he was thinking that if you are able to blast the West coast ship yards, and keep them damaged, the East coast is the only other place to build without risk of damage at the yards, and then ship those carriers through Panama. If Panama was choked off, you'd still pin the US to their own borders, and carriers would have to go all the way south around South America (though again, this delays the inveitable, doesn't it?).

[Zayphod]

but the time vortex doesn't allow them to change history.


And had they changed history, that atomic pile in their belly would cease to exist, since WW II was responsible for us entering the Atomic Age in the first place (Yes, it might have happened anyway, but we all know that war is the mother of invention).

[Zayphod]

See, that was my thinking as well (the holding Hawaii as a base, not the poison gas thing), since whoever holds it has a huge base at the half-way point across the Pacific. Look at why Hawaii was so important to the US, and you'd understand why it would have been just as important to the Japanese. With no refuling base anywhere decent in the Pacific, the US would have had to base their ships in San Francisco / Los Angeles until much, much later in the war.

Using Hawaii as a refuling point for their ships, the IJN could have pinned the US Navy back to the west coast (at least, until the industrial might of the US managed to re-build the fleet).

Once pinned against the wall, rebuilding ships would have been much more difficult, and without carriers, we never could have re-taken Hawaii. Without Hawaii, no taking Midway, and without Midway, no other islands to the west. Sort of like chess, huh?

But in summary, there's no real way that the Japanese could have brought enough troops to take Hawaii, as it would have been defended by 75,000-100,000 US troops on the ground. Can you imagine trying to bring an invasion force all the way over from the home islands in numbers necessary to take the island? Don't forget that the Japanese still had their force in China to supply. They did not have an inexhausatble amount of troops to bring to bear on Hawaii. They just did not have the manpower to do it.

Part of Pearl Harbor's success is that it happened suddenly. A task force of carriers going 25-30 knots is a lot harder to find than a fleet of troop transports doing 10-15 knots. The surprise angle would have most likely been lost and the force would have come under attack before reaching Hawaii, and Pearl would have been ready.

Let's assume that they did take Hawaii. How would you keep it supplied? The Japanese couldn't even supply the garrison on Wake Island, how could they have kept men and materiel flowing to an occupying force the size needed to hold a major US possession like Hawaii? They were already working under a shipping shortage in trying to keep holdings in China, Malaysia and the Philippines supplied. Now you want to add Hawaii and its distance all the way across the Pacific into the mix? The transit time alone would exacerbate the situation. Empty ships travelling back from Hawaii are effectively out of service until they make their way back to the Home Islands.

As for the carrier aspect, Combined Fleet addresses it here: http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

In short, what it says is that the US could build carriers so quickly that they would have caught up with Japan in a relatively short amount of time. Midway and the Solomon Islands wouldn't have happened if we had lost the carriers at Pearl, but the pace at which we could have replaced those losses means that Japan would have bought themself time but that's it. They would have prolonged the war, but definately not have won it. Remember why we won the way we did: we outproduced the other side.

EDIT: Sorry...didn't realize joea had already posted this link. I still think it presents an excellent case though!

I think that this was part of the problem that the leaders in Japan hadn't thought of before. Hawaii needed to be taken. The fact that it wasn't gives us the history lesson of not killing your enemy, but allowing him to live - he'll come back to haunt you. So many evil overlords have learned this the hard way (see every James Bond movie where the bad guy just misses the opportunity to kill the hero, and instead gives him an escape route, instead of just putting a bullet through the head).

Basically, you're saying that Japan was not prepared to take Hawaii, and I understand that. The question was "What would you have done differently if you were in charge of Japan's war resources?" i.e, take the necessary troups and make the invasion possible, take Midway at the same time, draw on other resources to make it happen.

I guess it comes down to Japan not really being ready for the fight they started. I agree about the manpower issue. I think they should have used a Ferengi method to buy time: "Every now and then, make peace with your enemies - it confuses the hell out of them."

Granted, they weren't at war with us YET, but they could have pretended to concede some things, while in the background, secretly prepare what was needed to make things happen.

[I-25]

My guess is that trying to send something that close to the mother ship (West Coast of the US) and keep it hidden would have been problematic, at best. The chances of being spotted are too great, and might have blown the cover off the impending Hawaii attack.

On the other hand, a simultanous attack on Midway might have helped.

lets not forget the japanese bombardement of the Ellwood oil fields

http://www.militarymuseum.org/Ellwood.html

altough by somthing a wee bit smaller than a carrier:roll:

[Jimbuna]

In hindsight it was probably a counter productive move by the Japanese :hmm:

[Zayphod]

In hindsight it was probably a counter productive move by the Japanese :hmm:

...and Hitler, now that I think about it. Had he set his scientists into production building those V2 rockets long before the 1944 timeframe, i.e., prior to invading Poland, things might have worked out differently as well.

But that's conjecture for another thread.

[Takeda Shingen]

Blast Pearl and then keep going on to seize Panama.

Why? Pacific coast shipbuilding industries were more than sufficient to make up for the numbers lost in Pearl. Seizing Panama results in the taking of a relatively insignificant facility while dangerously overextending Japan's already overextended forces.

I think he was thinking that if you are able to blast the West coast ship yards, and keep them damaged, the East coast is the only other place to build without risk of damage at the yards, and then ship those carriers through Panama. If Panama was choked off, you'd still pin the US to their own borders, and carriers would have to go all the way south around South America (though again, this delays the inveitable, doesn't it?).

Yep. It'll do ya no good. Stay away from Panama.

[sonar732]

In hindsight it was probably a counter productive move by the Japanese :hmm:

...and Hitler, now that I think about it. Had he set his scientists into production building those V2 rockets long before the 1944 timeframe, i.e., prior to invading Poland, things might have worked out differently as well.

But that's conjecture for another thread.

Or, utilized his resources and learned from the Japanese regarding aircraft carriers. Imagine if Hitler didn't bide into the bickering between the submarine and air forces stall tactics and would've had the Graf Zeppelin in the Atlantic? Even though it was a small carrier, combined with the U-boats, the Battle of the Atlantic would've been completely different strategically. The U.S. would've had to worry about the G.F. coming close to shore and bombing key cities on the East Coast and the Atlantic Fleet would've been hunting her down instead of escorting transports.

[JALU3]

Here's a bigger and more important question . . . the US Strategy would have been for the Battle Fleet to sail across the pacific to relieve the US and Allied Forces in the Dutch East Indies and the Philippine Islands. Now say that Japanese forces invade Dutch East Indies, without attacking US posessions . . . would Japane be able to hold those territories without other western powers declaring a state of war against it. For instance they posessed French Indochina under the auspice that they were doing so on behalf of the Vichy French. Could they not argue that they were holding the Dutch East Indies under an agreement with the government under German occupation?
This would have provided the raw material and resources needed to continue their war on the mainland . . . and countinue building up their naval forces for the inevitable move by western powers.
For if they were able to strengthen their forces in Truk and other central pacific locations, I beleive the US Battle fleet would not hold up against the airpower on those far flung outpost . . . given the fact that their route to relieve Guam and the Philippine Islands are easily predictable.

[TLAM Strike]

Here's a bigger and more important question . . . the US Strategy would have been for the Battle Fleet to sail across the pacific to relieve the US and Allied Forces in the Dutch East Indies and the Philippine Islands. Now say that Japanese forces invade Dutch East Indies, without attacking US posessions . . . would Japane be able to hold those territories without other western powers declaring a state of war against it. For instance they posessed French Indochina under the auspice that they were doing so on behalf of the Vichy French. Could they not argue that they were holding the Dutch East Indies under an agreement with the government under German occupation?
This would have provided the raw material and resources needed to continue their war on the mainland . . . and countinue building up their naval forces for the inevitable move by western powers.
For if they were able to strengthen their forces in Truk and other central pacific locations, I beleive the US Battle fleet would not hold up against the airpower on those far flung outpost . . . given the fact that their route to relieve Guam and the Philippine Islands are easily predictable. Yes it wouldn't have made much of a diffrence. Japan would have had the same advantages it had after PH the US would only have had a few additional BBs to slow its forces down. However I think the US could have at least got a few carriers within range of the Phillipines to resupply them with badly needed aircraft which it didn't try.

[JALU3]

Here's a bigger and more important question . . . the US Strategy would have been for the Battle Fleet to sail across the pacific to relieve the US and Allied Forces in the Dutch East Indies and the Philippine Islands. Now say that Japanese forces invade Dutch East Indies, without attacking US posessions . . . would Japane be able to hold those territories without other western powers declaring a state of war against it. For instance they posessed French Indochina under the auspice that they were doing so on behalf of the Vichy French. Could they not argue that they were holding the Dutch East Indies under an agreement with the government under German occupation?
This would have provided the raw material and resources needed to continue their war on the mainland . . . and countinue building up their naval forces for the inevitable move by western powers.
For if they were able to strengthen their forces in Truk and other central pacific locations, I beleive the US Battle fleet would not hold up against the airpower on those far flung outpost . . . given the fact that their route to relieve Guam and the Philippine Islands are easily predictable. Yes it wouldn't have made much of a diffrence. Japan would have had the same advantages it had after PH the US would only have had a few additional BBs to slow its forces down. However I think the US could have at least got a few carriers within range of the Phillipines to resupply them with badly needed aircraft which it didn't try.

Furthermore, the US Battle Fleet would have needed more oil to steam across to Guam and PI . . . meaning more slower tankers to follow . . . meaning an easier target for Truk based Aircraft and Carrier Based Aircraft. We'd be reading about the disaster at Truk today if there was no pearl harbor.
But that is if Japan attempted to engage the US, which we have shown that they did not have to do in order to secure the resources in the Dutch East Indies.

[The WosMan]

I am real late to the party on this. No matter what, Japan would have been defeated, even if they took Hawai, the oil, sunk our carriers, etc. No nation in the world could have competed with the USA's industrial capacity once geared up which was greater than every other leading nation during WW2 combined. We had the resources, the labor (due to the depression which was made worse by FDRs New Deal), and the will to become the most powerful nation on the planet. Unfortunately we are a mere shadow of this today.

[I-25]

i dissagree. if japan would have hit hard and strong, sink the US carriers and the rest of the fleet. they could have probably gone for the gold. after stiking pearl bypass hawaii and head straight for the US mainland. your right about the US industial power being able to crank out things much faster than the japanese ever could and Yamamoto knew this, that is why he tried to convince the cabinet to avoid war with the US in the first place. But i am convinced that japan could have got the US to sign a ceasefire. therefore i dont think japan could have got the US to unconditionaly surrender but they could of really stuck it to them.

[bradclark1]

You are wrong. The sneak attack on Pearl made it impossible to go for a truce or ceasefire. Our mindset over such a dastardly deed and our production capacity made it a slam dunk that Japan would be defeated. We had more of everything. Simple as that. They also could never have invaded Hawaii simply because of logistics.

[I-25]

I duno... US morale would go trought the floor if the japanese did anything big on the west coast.

[JALU3]

The US of then is different from the US of now. Now the US roles over, and is more then apt to take the easy way out. Long gone is the influence of those pioneers which sacrificed sweat, blood, tears, limb, and life to create this great nation. However, back then that influence was much stronger in the national character. Remember the ill planned Mexican Expedition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Service_Campaigns). Therefore, it would be safe to assume that the US wouldn't have sued for peace at anytime.
As for Japan being able to do anything big on the west coast. I don't believe that was possible. Japanese forces and resources were already focused on their main goals, the Dutch East Indies, and foreign posessions which stood in between it and Japan. They would have been unable to conduct amphibious operations of any kind towards the eastern pacific. However, if they did, I believe that the small force which they would have been able to land, even if it had been able to hold ground, would eventually lack the logistical support to mantain their preserce, or to enlarge its presence. Therefore, they would eventually be forced to conduct a fighting retreat to the beaches, or surrender.

[Frostyvegi]

Interesting that I stumble upon this topic now. I just finished reading a Tom Clancy novel titled Debt of Honour (Honor for those American chappies! :p).

Caution!!! MANY SPOILERS TO THE BOOK FOLLOWS.. PLEASE DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER IF YOU ARE OR ARE INTERESTED IN READING THIS NOVEL!!!! :up:


Anyway, in the novel Japan once again starts a war with America in the (guessed) early 90's. However, rather than a straight out attack, they first cut the legs out from under the United States by causing a stock market crash with a twist, basically destroying all records of all stocks traded at the NYSE during the crash (which, as you could guess, would leave everyone not knowing how much of what stock they own, and how much they bought or sold their stock for). They then crippled two of the few remaining US Aircraft Carriers in the Pacific during a combined exercise, and also destroyed two of the few operating US Fast Attack submarines. They had also coaxed India to threaten Sri Lanka, which held the remaining two operating US Carriers in that area and unable to help, then they launched a peaceful invasion of Mariana Islands. Also, although they did not know that the US were already aware, but they had built 10 nuclear ballistic missiles. This coincided when the US and Russia had just disposed of all of their remaining interconinental ballistic missiles, giving Japan the superiority in the nuclear arms race.

Clancy did mention early in the novel that the reason why Japan had not suceeded before (World War II), was because of the usual oversight that countries at war mainly use force to cause submission, rather than other means. By causing a stock market crash, Japan were under the impression that the US Government would be too pre-occupied dealing with that issue than to be able to branch out and supress the other problems. Japan knew that without a strong Carrier force, lack of nuclear penetration power (due to the lack of tension between the US and Russia, all Boomers were in the process of being defleated and the ICBM's being out of action), that they would be able to proceed with their ultimate plan of a concerted attack on Russia to capture lands in Siberia with China in order to secure more area for production (and all that yummy oil).

Consiquently, Jack Ryan saves they day (again), fixes the Stock Market by basically prentending the crash and the data lost never occured; ('If you don't write it down, it never happened'), getting the European Union to assist in turning the tables and causing devaluation of the Yen, eliminating the ICBM threat, getting his friends in the Navy to kick the Boomers outta retirement and getting everyone's favorite Intelligence Field Operative tying up the loose ends. Very interesting read (I strongly suggest it if you are at all interested in 'other' possible Pearl Harbours (I hope I didn't ruin it for too many of you! :P)).

[TLAM Strike]

You are wrong. The sneak attack on Pearl made it impossible to go for a truce or ceasefire. Our mindset over such a dastardly deed and our production capacity made it a slam dunk that Japan would be defeated. We had more of everything. Simple as that. They also could never have invaded Hawaii simply because of logistics. Early in 42 we were very close to being knocked out of the war in the atlantic thanks to Drumbeat. If a coastal campgain was launched on both sides of the US we would have been like Germany '45 with enemies advancing on both fronts. I agree with I-25 here they wouldn't have defeated the US but they could have gotten us to agree to their terms.

[bradclark1]

Early in 42 we were very close to being knocked out of the war in the atlantic thanks to Drumbeat. If a coastal campgain was launched on both sides of the US we would have been like Germany '45 with enemies advancing on both fronts. I agree with I-25 here they wouldn't have defeated the US but they could have gotten us to agree to their terms.
If we are talking what ifs I'd say that if a campaign had of started on the west coast Admiral King with his Anglophobia would have been fired and someone with sense would have taken over and convoys would have been implemented earlier. Also we weren't supplying another country off the west coast so pickings would have been very slim. Also again logistics would have to be taken into account.

[TLAM Strike]

Early in 42 we were very close to being knocked out of the war in the atlantic thanks to Drumbeat. If a coastal campgain was launched on both sides of the US we would have been like Germany '45 with enemies advancing on both fronts. I agree with I-25 here they wouldn't have defeated the US but they could have gotten us to agree to their terms.
If we are talking what ifs I'd say that if a campaign had of started on the west coast Admiral King with his Anglophobia would have been fired and someone with sense would have taken over and convoys would have been implemented earlier. Also we weren't supplying another country off the west coast so pickings would have been very slim. Also again logistics would have to be taken into account. We were supplying Austraila via the west coast IIRC.

[bradclark1]

Not on any level at all compared to the Atlantic conveyor. Australia was even suppling GB with food parcels.

[JALU3]

The problem with that logic is that Japan lacked the doctrine to attack merchant shipping . . . and that japan lacked the infastructure to support a long term submarine anti-shipping campaign in the Eastern Pacific.
Therefore the nations of Australia and New Zealand would have continued to be supplied.
What Japan was focused on was getting to the resource rich dutch east indies. The reason for attacking the US and the Commonwealth was that they feared that both contries would have attacked them in response to their take over of the dutch east indies. Therefore they made the strategical decision to deal with the problem at the beginning of their campaign before either country could martial up their resources and provide a determined resistance.
Theoretically Japan could have attacked Commonwealth forces in the Far East, and with enough diplomatic tact, could have kept US Forces out of the war for another 3-12 months, if not longer. By that time, Japan could have consolidated their holdings in the Dutch East Indies and focused on China and India.
Those in the Japanese leadership knew that once America was focusing their full attention on them, that their long-term situation was in peril. That's why they attempted Pearl Harbor to attempt to get the US off guard and take us out of the war early.

[teddy996]

It is surprising to me that, on a submarine sim board, no one has even mentioned the fact that the pens at Pearl remained untouched during the strike. Had the IJN strike force remained in the area after the initial attack, I think they would have been made to suffer for it. With an immediate reprisal force of 4 (5, if the Cuttlefish could leave drydock) subs, and US sub presence still at full force in the pacific, re-supply convoys and/or troop transports for an invasion would have been cut to ribbons. The risk of staying in the area for the IJN was not worth it.

[micky1up]

You are wrong. The sneak attack on Pearl made it impossible to go for a truce or ceasefire. Our mindset over such a dastardly deed and our production capacity made it a slam dunk that Japan would be defeated. We had more of everything. Simple as that. They also could never have invaded Hawaii simply because of logistics.


and i suppose america would have told a potential enemy the time and place of attack do not call it sneaky it makes perfect military sense to make a surprise attack

[Zayphod]

You are wrong. The sneak attack on Pearl made it impossible to go for a truce or ceasefire. Our mindset over such a dastardly deed and our production capacity made it a slam dunk that Japan would be defeated. We had more of everything. Simple as that. They also could never have invaded Hawaii simply because of logistics.

and i suppose america would have told a potential enemy the time and place of attack do not call it sneaky it makes perfect military sense to make a surprise attack

Actually, they didn't "intend" for it to be a surprise attack. They notice was several hours late because of the time it took to type it all up. Based on that movie, the guy at the typewriter needed another course in speed-typing. :p

They wanted to give at least 30 minutes notice just to be on the safe side. What the Japanese government hadn't counted on, of course, was some guy by the name of Murphy, and his laws, screwing up the best laid plans of mice.

Had notice been given, I think the US population would have been a tad upset about the attack, but not surprised (probably expecting it). The fact that it turned INTO a surprise changed the way we felt about it, and of course, the rest is history.

[bradclark1]

It is surprising to me that, on a submarine sim board, no one has even mentioned the fact that the pens at Pearl remained untouched during the strike. Had the IJN strike force remained in the area after the initial attack, I think they would have been made to suffer for it. With an immediate reprisal force of 4 (5, if the Cuttlefish could leave drydock) subs, and US sub presence still at full force in the pacific, re-supply convoys and/or troop transports for an invasion would have been cut to ribbons. The risk of staying in the area for the IJN was not worth it.
If they were going to invade they would have targeted differently and there would have been more strikes. Subs would have probably been a priority target of the first strike.

[mookiemookie]

I think someone hit it on the head earlier...U.S. and Japanese naval doctrine in those days centered around a "winner take all" naval battle between capital ships, and thus they were the first target. I doubt Japan had the foresight to understand what unrestricted submarine warfare would do to their plans in the Pacific. Funny, as the Battle of the Atlantic was in full swing at this point and the effect U-boats were having was readily apparent.

[Torplexed]

Japan had to struggle to find the hulls to carry out her conquest of the Southern Resource Area. I don't know where she would have found additional ships for invading Hawaii or the US West Coast. Also, Japan ruled out invading Australia in 1942 because the divisions just weren't there (most were stuck in China) So again I don't see where an invasion of the US was a remote possibility. Even holding two remote and useless islands in the Aleutians proved to be a logistical strain that the Japanese later regretted.

[micky1up]

You are wrong. The sneak attack on Pearl made it impossible to go for a truce or ceasefire. Our mindset over such a dastardly deed and our production capacity made it a slam dunk that Japan would be defeated. We had more of everything. Simple as that. They also could never have invaded Hawaii simply because of logistics.

and i suppose america would have told a potential enemy the time and place of attack do not call it sneaky it makes perfect military sense to make a surprise attack

Actually, they didn't "intend" for it to be a surprise attack. They notice was several hours late because of the time it took to type it all up. Based on that movie, the guy at the typewriter needed another course in speed-typing. :p

They wanted to give at least 30 minutes notice just to be on the safe side. What the Japanese government hadn't counted on, of course, was some guy by the name of Murphy, and his laws, screwing up the best laid plans of mice.

Had notice been given, I think the US population would have been a tad upset about the attack, but not surprised (probably expecting it). The fact that it turned INTO a surprise changed the way we felt about it, and of course, the rest is history.


you correct about the timing snag but some of the previuosly intercepted telex's to the jap emabasy indicated that the attack was automatically going to happen the timing would have announced at exactly the same time as the attack was scheduled so it still would have been a surprise regaurdless