Pacific war What-ifs
 

So there is RR's interesting thread about the U-boat war and the what-if story. The fact that what-ifs abound in the european war highlights the fact that it was a close-run thing and that other scenario endings were possible.

But for the Pacific war, Japan's GDP was 1/6th that of the US. So they attack in some Satsuma rebellion style apocalyptic do-or-die spasm of violence.

I cannot think, for the life of me, of any what-ifs that may not have ended in total Japanese defeat. But then I know little about that war.

So here's my question:

What, apart from backing down from Manchuria after the oil embargo was in force, could Japan have done that may have yielded a different outcome from the one that did actually develop?

Adopt a different strategic doctrine with the IJN.

Simply have resources to conduct a war. The Japanese knew that resources would be their undoing. They knew oil would not last but a few years to fuel the war machines. Perhaps a stock pile of resources before you conduct war. Most people do not go on a 400 mile trip with a 1/4 tank of gas and expect to get their.

One other thing, a second wave at Pearl Harbor should have happened.

Yep. Japanese subs were the largest and some of the most sophisticated of the war, but they used them to scout and sink warships, instead of trying to strangle the USA's merchants.

They were fast, had radar later in the war, and had Kaitens (like a Cutie, except with longer range, higher speed and a human pilot). If they had really focused on slaughtering US merchants they could have at least slowed down the island-hopping compaign.

One thing Japan could have done to change the equation a bit was to dispense with the initial Pearl Harbor attack. The surprise attack on the Pacific Fleet goaded and united Americans as never before. If Japan had declined to declare war on the US in December 1941 and had instead bypassed the Phillipines and other US possessions to attack the resource-rich British and Dutch colonies in the Far East that they desired, they probably would have still found themselves at war with the US as we were bound to come to Britain's aid. But without the surprise attack element it would have taken out a lot of the sting the American public felt on December 7th, 1941. We would have found ourselves going to war not to avenge Pearl Harbor or Bataan or Wake Island but to protect British and Dutch colonial interests in Asia. Not as much of a rallying point for a staunchily isolationist nation. America was fairly oil independent at the time so Japan taking oil-rich Sumatra and Borneo wouldn't have been a matter of life and death. Of course without the surprise attack on the Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor the US would have gone ahead with Plan Orange. Sending a vast fleet of battleships and carrier across the Pacific to protect or relieve the Phillipines. Well...that was the battle the IJN had been preparing for for many years. They had more carriers at that point and excellent pilots. Not to mention a lot of land based air enroute. Battleships sunk in the mid-Pacific couldn't be raised from the bottom like the ones on Battleship Row.

Japan probably still would have lost. But it might have been a longer contest. Certainly a what if scenario. :hmm:

There really is not a what if where Japan, alone, wins the war. The Japanese policy of rearmament during the 1930's was bankrupting the nation. They had to import almost everything and their exports hardly covered this cost. So, if they did not go to war in 1941, the Japanese nation would have been bankrupt shortly there after.

A different strategic policy for the IJN is a non-starter. The USA is, for the most part, self-sufficient. A commerce raiding & I-Boat strategy would hinder the American war effort, but would not cripple or halt it. At most, the IJN can only delay the inevitable rise in American war production and the USN's march across the Pacific. The same for any strategic air campaign, the USA is to far away. Even if the Japanese had taken Hawaii, the Islands are to far from the West Coast to be of any good here. Not to mention, putting undue strain on the Japanese logistics to keep the islands supplied. Nor, can Japan hope of damaging any industries located on the East Coast.

A Japanese "victory" during World War II would rely heavily on Germany. Here, events would proceed normally through the fall of France. Here would be the deviation. Germany shifts its economy to "war production". The U-Boat campaign I'd keep, it holds the British Isles in check. Then, there is no Battle of Britain, that was a useless waste of German planes, pilots, and time. Instead, Germany moves to secure the Med and the Mid-East. Once this is done, both Germany and Japan move against Russia. The increased German war production and the addition of Japanese forces moving into Siberia will, hopefully, cause the downfall of Russia. With Russia out of the way. Germany is free to move against the British Isles and Japan can move into against India and the British territories in the Pacific. Even still, you would have to include what the USA would be doing during this time. If the combined efforts of Germany and Japan take out Russia by the end of 1941. The Japan, well the Axis, have a good chance of winning World War II.

Notice, I don't mention a Pearl Harbor. There is no way, I would attack it. Let the USA come to me to do battle. Nothing infuriated the Americans more than that attack. No Pearl Harbor, and much of the willingness of the American public to go to and then sustain a prolonged war is gone. If Germany and Japan could quickly dispose of Britain, than any overt action by the USA is unlikely. Germany gets Europe and Africa, Japan has Asia and the Pacific(out to but excluding Midway), and the United States has the Americas. What a different World that would be.

Not really a Japanese What-If, but an Axis one.

Pure & Simple !! EXPANSION FEVER Without any loss to speak of, the
Japanese just kept going instead of grabbing what they needed and go into
a defense mode. Someone should have given them the book "Rise & Fall of the
Roman Empire"


JIM

Assuming a declared war on America but given hindsight I'd change a lot of things in the prewar production cycle if I were the Emperor. (Not that it'd make much of a difference) Cancel the Yamato BBs for starters. For roughly the same tonnage 3 Unryu class carriers could be built per Yamato.

Put more emphasis on pilot training and rotating veteran pilots home to train rookies. Japan had an insane policy of keeping veteran pilots at the front until they were dead or wounded. And they didn't train enough of them. The carrier pilots who fought in the Marianas battle in 1944 were almost all green. By Leyte Gulf they were switching to kamikazes.

Change ASW doctrine radically. Beg, borrow and steal any radar and sonar technology you can from allies and enemies alike. Beat and whip it into the destroyer and escort captains heads that defending merchant ship from subs is their most honorable profession. Cancel wasteful and counter-productive projects like the midget subs and the massive I-400 class in favor of building escorts. Frankly I'd cancel all Japanese sub production except for the advanced ST types. The RO-class in particular was virtually useless.

Scrap all the pre-war battleships for their steel with exception of the Kongo class. The old and slow Nagato, Ise and Fuso classes contributed very little to the war effort. Build even more escorts with the steel. Use the guns for coastal defence.

Well...there's a million things Japan could have done ahead of time. But assuming war with America they probably would have only delayed defeat given the disparity between the two opponents. Here's a link to a page on combined fleet site that compares Japan and the USA economically. Quite an eye-popper considering the historical decisions made.

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

:ping:

It's a great paradox.

Japan went to war with China to create a resource base so they would be able to conduct a war against a major power (US). In so doing, their actions created the resource shortfall they were trying to avoid (US embargo). The solution, of course, is to go to war and end up in the situation they were trying to avoid in the first place.

Sometimes cooler heads have to prevail.

I don't think there is any way that Japan defeats the USA in the 1940's. They could have done things to make the war last longer, but the balance of force ALWAYS favors the US in the end.

One major "what if?" is,what if Japan had started it's chemical warfare and long range bomber (That could reach San Francisco) program a few years earlier? The Japanese were actually in the process of constructing the bombers and developing the chemical bombs needed when the war ended.(Having already done CW tests in China).

I wonder what the affect of a chemical weapon attack on US soil would have had on the average American?

There's been some interesting responses, but generally back up my main feeling that Japan had no chance. I can't quite understand why they went for it anyway.

As for that last point. Unless they could proceed to hit every single US city, and the US did not have a counter or equivalent retaliation to it, i think it would have just have made Americans more angry and less inclined towards the stunning magnaminity the US did in fact show upon victory.

I shudder to think. One thing is certain. Any guilt the average American might feel about the twin A-bomb attacks or the firebombing of Japanese cities probably would have been expunged.

They went for because they had a recent history of being giant killers. They defeated Imperial China in the 1890s. They humbled Russia in 1905. They overran German Asian and Pacific possessions in World War One. They were gobbling up China again in the 1930s. The first six months of the Pacific War only bolstered their belief in their martial superiority. A lot of men in the Imperial Navy knew better. They had seen the outside world. But the Imperial Army drove policy.

At Pearl Harbor:
No midget subs. Placing at least 4 big subs near the harbor approach. Launching the third wave and risk the losses.

At Midway:
No clump of carriers! Building a northern and a southern carrier group. Stuff the diversion for the Aleuthans and use the ships for Midway.
After Coral Sea they should've had at least a hint that their codesystem was broken.

Why Japan did it
 

Japan went for it because of one simple reason: the leadership didn't want to relinquish power. Just like with Germany, the policies of the government were bankrupting the nation. That would have resulted in a destabilised political ituation where the leadership would have to give up power and where the military would have to accept cutbacks. In a non-democratic society, nations then try and find a scape goat. Plenty of examples are available: the Argentinian junta went to war over the Falklands and Robert Mugabe is blaming white farmers.

And the US would have been able to beat both Germany and Japan regardless of what scenario you think of. US production capacity and population were so large that the outcome was always certain. It was just the time it would take that was in question.

It is really amazing that the Japanese took the leap. I think that their leaders at the time really believed that they would be able to secure the resources that they would need for a protracted war. I believe that they believed their own propaganda that Americans were lazy and had no stomach for a fight. They didn't think that the Americans had the stamina for extended submarine patrols. They didn't believe that the American public would tolerate the kind of losses that they would attempt to inflict.

Any objective assement of the Pearl Harbor attack must conclude that the Japanese would have been much better off had they continued the attack. They would have destroyed the fuel and weapons depots. They would have destroyed the repair facilities and drydocks. This would have driven the entire fleet, including submarines, to the West Coast at least temporarily. That would add at least 2500 miles to any attempt to patrol in Empire areas. Any submarine patrols into Empire areas would have had to come form Alaska, or beyond the Malay Barrier. Midway would have become untenable, much as Wake Island and Guam. It would have fallen quickly, followed very quickly by the Hawaiian Islands, before the US could bring its industrial base to bear.

At the very least, the war would have been much longer, 2-6 years possibly. In all likelihood Britain would have continued to insist upon defeating Germany first, then engaging Japan. The Brits and the Russians would have been more heavily involved, if they had been able to survive against the Germans as well as a possible Japanese incursion across Central Asia.

It really is sobering to realize that just a few more bombs in the "right" places could have completely altered the outcome of the war.

Respectfully Submitted;
CDR Resser

In my opinion, there would not have been such a grand march to war if there had been no Pearl Harbor. For years we had successfully kept ourselves out of harms way while British and Russian armies confronted Germany like a pair of bookends. Japan controled China with nothing more than a wimper from us. We had just barely returned from a depression that had gripped much of our economy for the previous decade. We had no desire to throw our hat into the ring. The devastating attack at Pearl pushed us into it. I believe if Japan would have nibbled at our heels we would have shook our leg and kept right on walking. To take such a bite as Japan accomplished warranted our only reaction. Confront the adversary, to both Japan's and Gremany's demise.

Japan was, in fact, allied with Germany and Italy formally through the Tripartite pact of September 1940.

In coordination with Germany's invasion of Russia in June 1941, Japan could/should have attacked Russia out of Manchuria (with extremely experienced and capable Japanese Army units) and simultaneously from the sea with Naval and Amphibious forces against the major port of Vladivostok and the Kamchatka peninsula. The logistical supply lines across the Sea of Japan would be ridiculously short and totally secure and the lines further North across the Sea of Okhotsk almost equally so. Irkutsk, the major Russian city in Siberia would be only 5-600 miles inland and would very likely have fallen before Winter began. Russia would have been incapable of sustaining defensive operations on both their western and eastern fronts, and would have fallen/surrendered by the beginning of 1942, or at the absolute latest mid-1942 following a second combined Spring offensive by both the Japanese and Germans.

In the West, Russia's defeat would have left the door open for the Germans to move on through the Caucasus (OIL) and across Iran, Iraq, and Turkey. Rommel, reinforced with men/material no longer needed for Germany's Eastern Front against Russia, would undoubtedly have quickly defeated British forces in North Africa and seized Cairo/Egypt not later than mid-1942 and linked up with German forces coming from the North and East. (MidEast OIL).

THe UK would have had no choice but to sue for peace, which Hitler would have undoubtedly accepted with no occupation of the British home islands. The U.S. (American popular opinion) would have no reason to get involved. Even if the UK did not officially 'surrender', they would have had no independent ability to launch any counter offensive against the Germans in Europe or MidEast or Africa.

Japan could then turn at its leisure, beginning in mid 1942 and definitely no later than Fall of 1942 and with virtually no resistance, to seize the Indonesian Oil and other resources, bypassing the Phillipines for the time being, so long as the US behaved and did not interfere. Even if the US did somehow generate public support for doing so and actually moved to offer resistance to the Japanese Southern thrust, the Japanese would have had totally secure 'interior' supply lines from/across Russia.

Finally, the Germans and Japanese at least theoretically could have energized the Russian industrial production capacity to build up and prepare for any future conflict (World War III ???) with the US.

I think that there were two ways that Japan could have at least prolonged, if not won the war in the Pacific*

There were two areas where the IJN was SERIOUSLY lacking during WWII: Signals Intelligence/cryptographic security, and Anti-Submarine Warfare.

Both of those aren't glamorous, especially in a culture that prides itself on military honor, but both were absolutely VITAL to the defeat of the U-Boats in the Atlantic.

Realistically, improving their SIGINT probably wouldn't have helped the IJN very much. US subs just didn't transmit as much as the Ubootwaffe, and the US SIGABA machine was much more secure than even the 4 rotor naval Enigma. I doubt any nation could have broken it consistently, even with machine assistance.

One area they could have made a difference is to improve their own communications security. I'm not sure that it ever occured to them that we were reading their mail most of the time. Surely, though, someone at some point must have realized that the US being at the right place at the right time so often had to be more than coincidence.

If the Japanese tighten up their signal security, we are deprived of a lot of intelligence. One of the ways the US Navy was so successful is that they used the signals intelligence from FRUPAC to guide the subs to areas where there were likely to be ships. Deprive the US of that benefit, and fewer ships get sunk.

Another area where they could have really made a difference is in ASW tactics and technology: If the US fleet boats had to run up against an opponent like the combined UK/CANADA/US forces in the Atlantic, especially after 1943, they would have taken much greater losses.

Imagine fleet boats having to deal with very long range aircraft equipped with 10 or 3 CM radar, armed with acoustic guided torpedoes like the FIDO, and radar equipped escorts with good SONAR and weapons like Hedgehog and Squid.

If US subs get sunk at a rate similar to that of the U-Boats in the Atlantic, then it takes much longer and much more resources to effectively choke Japan.


*Ultimately, the atomic bomb comes into the picture which ends the war.

if japan had of adopted a doctrine of pulling their best pilots out of the war after so many missions to train new pilots in air combat it might have offset the disaster of their doctrine of "fly till you die".

If japan had of abandoned much earlier the strict code of entry to military leadership academies, flight school, and command school. they may have had the personal acailable to replace combat losses.

If japan had of consolidated their weapons procurement procedures and supplied the armies with consistent weapons across all units and consolidated the vastly duplicated naval and air force structure into a single service and done the same with ship building and aircraft construction they may have made a difference. prime example is the musashi and yamato class battle ships. compelete and total waste of treasure and manpower.

If japan had not relied so heavily on dispersed weapons productions basically based around the cottage industry model reserves of ammunition and weapons may have have been higher.

if japan had of adopted a early war convoy policy it would have renderd the effect of the US submarine service much smaller than it was

if japan had of taken a stronger control and emphasis over the merchant fleet

if japanese submarines had of been utilized to interdict american supply ships instead of primarly searching for warships.

if japan aircraft design doctrine had of shifted from unarmoured dueling style aircraft to a more keep the pilot alive model.

japanese commanders invariably when given a choice opted for a tactical victory sacrificing strategic objectives. pearl harbor was a prime example. tactically a massive success strategically a total and complete failure on numerous levels the highest being the total miss on the oil depot.

and last and most important if japan had of ditched that idiotic samurai mentality...