Pacific war What-ifs

odjig292 · 01-20-08, 08:00 PM

I'm coming in late but have to agree with RR, CaptainHaplo and torplexed that

1. The Japanese were carried away with their early victories (just like the Germans) and expanded way beyond what they could defend.

2. Both countries threw away their original battle plans and decided they could beat the US just like they were doing with other lesser countries. They failed to see that the US had the resources to send 1000 plane bomber raids into both Germany and Japan. Neither side could imagine the shipbuilding capability of the US once it got started. The last US Task Force in 1945 covered over 90 square miles of ocean and the D-Day invasion had some 5,000 ships.

3. Neither of the Axis had the capability to change direction with new technology while the Allies constantly evolved with new weapons and tactics. The Germans were too late with the Type XXI, V1 and V2, and the Japanese's major superior weapons were the Zero and the Long Lance.

4. The Japanese samurai influence was not a good one for fighting a long term war. If you visit Guadacanal, Lei, Port Moresby, etc. their tactics were wrong, and threw away thousands of lives, as did Iwo Jima, Saipan, Okinawa.

There are two "what-if's" for Germany. These are what-if they had 300 U-Boats at the start of the war and , and what-if they had built the Type XXI, V1 and V2 in 1943. There are no offsetting what-if's for the Japanese other than what-if they hadn't bombed Pearl Harbor. Once they did that, their fate was sealed, just like Germany's was virtually sealed when they crossed the border into Russia.

I'm old enough to recall the troops coming home from both Europe and the Pacific and can remember them saying "We made fewer mistakes than they did. That's why we won." It suggests that our leadership at the higher levels made better decisions. Whether that is because we are democracies is a topic for future debate.

01-20-08, 08:00 PM	#20
odjig292 Mate Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 55 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	A most interesting thread I'm coming in late but have to agree with RR, CaptainHaplo and torplexed that 1. The Japanese were carried away with their early victories (just like the Germans) and expanded way beyond what they could defend. 2. Both countries threw away their original battle plans and decided they could beat the US just like they were doing with other lesser countries. They failed to see that the US had the resources to send 1000 plane bomber raids into both Germany and Japan. Neither side could imagine the shipbuilding capability of the US once it got started. The last US Task Force in 1945 covered over 90 square miles of ocean and the D-Day invasion had some 5,000 ships. 3. Neither of the Axis had the capability to change direction with new technology while the Allies constantly evolved with new weapons and tactics. The Germans were too late with the Type XXI, V1 and V2, and the Japanese's major superior weapons were the Zero and the Long Lance. 4. The Japanese samurai influence was not a good one for fighting a long term war. If you visit Guadacanal, Lei, Port Moresby, etc. their tactics were wrong, and threw away thousands of lives, as did Iwo Jima, Saipan, Okinawa. There are two "what-if's" for Germany. These are what-if they had 300 U-Boats at the start of the war and , and what-if they had built the Type XXI, V1 and V2 in 1943. There are no offsetting what-if's for the Japanese other than what-if they hadn't bombed Pearl Harbor. Once they did that, their fate was sealed, just like Germany's was virtually sealed when they crossed the border into Russia. I'm old enough to recall the troops coming home from both Europe and the Pacific and can remember them saying "We made fewer mistakes than they did. That's why we won." It suggests that our leadership at the higher levels made better decisions. Whether that is because we are democracies is a topic for future debate.