70 years ago...

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

The size of the base hardly matters. All of our Pacific battleships and carriers were stationed there, and the only BB not there at the time was Colorado, being overhauled at Bremerton, Washington. Pearl Harbor may not have been the biggest basket, but all our Pacific eggs were indeed there.

Well not all. There is more to military power than just Naval and we weren't the only allied navy in the region. I'm not arguing that Pearl was not the target of 1st choice but it was not everything we had to fight with either (obviously).

[August]

Originally Posted by privateer

I'm really wondering why they messed about in the Aleutian islands.
Same problem with no major victory or advantages gained.

Diversion for the Midway attack I thought.

Originally Posted by August

Diversion for the Midway attack I thought.

I've read that and other thoughts and I still do not see the logic in any of them when you look at supply line problems.

I kind of think of it as Japans version of Hitler attacking the Soviet Union.
A waste of good troops to gain nothing.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Mahanian theory disregards what types of ships they are. Is the concentration of force and the destruction of the enemy's main attack force that is critical in Mahan's doctrine.

I really doubt the Japanese could have held the islands. Their supply lines would have been stretched thin by it. Basing their ships there would have left them exposed to attrition by US forces based on the west coast.

I believe their original stategy was to draw out the US fleet and whoop it in a surface battle (enter Yamato). I don't remember at what point they switched to Yamamoto's idea.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by August

Diversion for the Midway attack I thought.

It was also to draw out our main fleet into the open.

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

It was also to draw out our main fleet into the open.

And that didn't work because We looked at the attack and said.....
'Cut the supply line and let the Bastards starve and freeze to death.'

[August]

Originally Posted by privateer

I've read that and other thoughts and I still do not see the logic in any of them when you look at supply line problems.

Banzai charges and ritual mass suicides aren't logical either but the Japanese were known for them throughout the war.

Besides a Midway diversion there was also a propaganda value. It was after all American soil. In their mind we would break ourselves trying to remove them just like they would if we seized one of their home islands.

True point.
It's probable what got them Nuked at the end.

[August]

Originally Posted by privateer

True point.
It's probable what got them Nuked at the end.

Nah, what got them nuked was the spectre of a couple of million Allied casualties trying to take the Japanese home islands by land assault. Okinawa and Iwo Jima were just tastes of the reception our boys would have gotten. I'd have nuked them too, and kept on nuking them until they threw in the towel.

[Oberon]

Ironic that the conversation of invading Hawaii (or Oahu to be precise) comes about as I'm rereading "Days of Infamy" by Harry Turtledove. Now, you can pick apart Turtledoves knowledge of military equipment, but even he has to admit that supplying Pearl Harbour after invading it would have been a logistical nightmare and would have done little but pad the Pacific war out by a year maximum. As Yamamoto foresaw, once the US 'arsenal of democracy' got into full gear, there was simply no way to stop it, defeat was a certainty, I think the Japanese plan from '43 onwards was to make each American victory as costly as possible and thank God that Operation Olympic never went ahead.
Another scenario I've pondered about though is Japan leaving China alone from the beginning (it was a mess to get into) and then hitting the Soviet Union in '41, not long after the Germans had made their in-roads.
I doubt the US would have intervened, or indeed cut off the oil supplies (not at first...but Stalin probably could have persuaded FDR to threaten Japan with oil cuts if they didn't seek a peaceful end to the war, but if Japan got the Siberian reaches, their mineral problems are solved and their oil problems would soon be solved too (although that is applying hindsight in terms of undiscovered oil deposits).
It's something I might try out sometime in Hearts of Iron, but honestly I wouldn't know that if it failed it was because it was never really possible in the first place, or whether it was just because I suck at Hearts of Iron.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Now, you can pick apart Turtledoves knowledge of military equipment, but even he has to admit that supplying Pearl Harbour after invading it would have been a logistical nightmare and would have done little but pad the Pacific war out by a year maximum.

All excellent points. If the Japanese had taken Hawaii there may or may not have been sufficient supplies to feed them. Whether or not they had to ferry supplies for thousands of miles, the US submarine force would have made their lives miserable. Imagine even half of the 21 subs based at Pearl Harbor now operating out of San Francisco, with new boats coming into service every month. With a much shorter distance and travel time they could have operated in Hawaiian waters for great lengths of time, and the Japanese garrisons there would have had a very tough time of it.

[breadcatcher101]

I always thought it somewhat amusing that when Hitler heard of the attack at Pearl Harbor none of his staff could tell him where it was.

[nikimcbee]

the US submarine force would have made their lives miserable.

...if we had fuctioning torps.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Thank you. Thank you. *looks for a 'taking a bow' gif but doesn't see one*

One thing I found interesting was that a British writer predicted the Pacific War as early as 1925. He got some of the details wrong, predicting an attack on Manila rather than Hawaii, but his foretelling of the actual campaign was quite accurate, probably because both Japanese and American strategists used the book as a guide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hector_Charles_Bywater
http://www.lindseywilliams.org/LAL_A...ese_Attack.htm

And copies of the book are available.
http://www.amazon.com/Great-Pacific-...3311765&sr=1-1

Try this one Steve:

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=tak...1t:429,r:8,s:0

A fascinating debate gents and one I'm really enjoying catching up on with my slice of toast and canned pop/soda

[Sailor Steve]

Umm, your link took me to a site for dozens of smilies.