War Topic: what would YOU have done re Pearl Harbor? - Page 5

I-25 · 10-10-07, 07:19 PM

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 · 10-10-07, 08:03 PM

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 · 10-10-07, 08:14 PM

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

JALU3 · 10-10-07, 10:09 PM

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. 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 · 10-11-07, 12:21 AM

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!!!!

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 · 10-11-07, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 10-11-07, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

TLAM Strike · 10-13-07, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bradclark1

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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 · 10-13-07, 03:11 PM

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

JALU3 · 10-13-07, 10:19 PM

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 · 10-14-07, 01:01 AM

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 · 10-15-07, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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

10-15-07, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by micky1up

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 10-15-07, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 10-15-07, 08:32 PM

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.

10-10-07, 10:09 PM	#64
JALU3 Grey Wolf Join Date: May 2007 Location: 11SMS 98896 10565 Posts: 756 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	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. 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. __________________ "The Federation needs men like you, doctor. Men of conscience. Men of principle. Men who can sleep at night... You're also the reason Section Thirty-one exists -- someone has to protect men like you from a universe that doesn't share your sense of right and wrong." -Sloan, Section Thirty-One

10-13-07, 10:19 PM	#70
JALU3 Grey Wolf Join Date: May 2007 Location: 11SMS 98896 10565 Posts: 756 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ "The Federation needs men like you, doctor. Men of conscience. Men of principle. Men who can sleep at night... You're also the reason Section Thirty-one exists -- someone has to protect men like you from a universe that doesn't share your sense of right and wrong." -Sloan, Section Thirty-One

10-15-07, 08:32 PM	#75
mookiemookie Navy Seal Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 9,404 Downloads: 105 Uploads: 1	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. __________________ They don’t think it be like it is, but it do. Want more U-boat Kaleun portraits for your SH3 Commander Profiles? Download the SH3 Commander Portrait Pack here.

10-10-07, 07:19 PM	#61
I-25 Commodore Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Bavaria, Germany Posts: 629 Downloads: 27 Uploads: 0	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.

10-10-07, 08:03 PM	#62
bradclark1 Ocean Warrior Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Connecticut, USA. Posts: 2,794 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	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.

10-10-07, 08:14 PM	#63
I-25 Commodore Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Bavaria, Germany Posts: 629 Downloads: 27 Uploads: 0	I duno... US morale would go trought the floor if the japanese did anything big on the west coast.

10-11-07, 12:21 AM	#65
Frostyvegi A-ganger Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 78 Downloads: 6 Uploads: 0	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!!!! 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)).

10-13-07, 03:11 PM	#69
bradclark1 Ocean Warrior Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Connecticut, USA. Posts: 2,794 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	Not on any level at all compared to the Atlantic conveyor. Australia was even suppling GB with food parcels.

10-14-07, 01:01 AM	#71
teddy996 Swabbie Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 6 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	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.