The same vision of the pacific war, San B-17, had been the definitive US Naval war plan against japan since 1920. While popular literature and hyped up nationalist speculation (of the same kind sometimes seen on this site) speaks of Japanese invasion and occupation of Hawaii and direct US assault on Japanese home islands, limits of the geography of pacific focuses planners on both sides upon essentially the same necessary vision of what course the war must take.
WW II Historical Thread, Discussion, Pics, Videos
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
The same vision of the pacific war, San B-17, had been the definitive US Naval war plan against japan since 1920. While popular literature and hyped up nationalist speculation (of the same kind sometimes seen on this site) speaks of Japanese invasion and occupation of Hawaii and direct US assault on Japanese home islands, limits of the geography of pacific focuses planners on both sides upon essentially the same necessary vision of what course the war must take.
Best book on the war at sea, in both the Atlantic and the Pacific that I have ever read, is, "The Two Ocean War," by Samuel Eliot Morison.
I find 2 books very instructive about the background on the allied side of the war against Japan. One is War Plan Orange: The U.S. Strategy to Defeat Japan, 1897-1945 by Edward Miller. The other is about British planning from 1919-1941 for war with Japan, it appears to be out of print and I forgot the title, I'll look it up when I get home.
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
People tend to get too much caught on the US carriers being in port why would they all be in port?? yes they should have but at the end of the day they were not and Japanese missed them
US was not so stupid to have all it's assets in one place they were out sailing on duties so missed them
It's kind of like saying the Argentinian air force was unluckily during the 1982 Falklands war, there bomb fuses didn't go off because they were dropped from low altitude but the end of day they were forced into flyng low by British air guard and stinger missiles
The main point about Pearl Harbour is that the Japanese also made one big huge mistake, they didn't bomb the huge oil installations not even touched them, the US Pacific fleet relied heavily on those oil installations to refuel and resupply
With fuel intact the US was able to get things going quickly
So the Japanese attack not only missed the carrier they missed the oil terminals at Pearl Harbour too
US was not so stupid to have all it's assets in one place they were out sailing on duties so missed them
It's kind of like saying the Argentinian air force was unluckily during the 1982 Falklands war, there bomb fuses didn't go off because they were dropped from low altitude but the end of day they were forced into flyng low by British air guard and stinger missiles
The main point about Pearl Harbour is that the Japanese also made one big huge mistake, they didn't bomb the huge oil installations not even touched them, the US Pacific fleet relied heavily on those oil installations to refuel and resupply
With fuel intact the US was able to get things going quickly
So the Japanese attack not only missed the carrier they missed the oil terminals at Pearl Harbour too
Exactly right, asif.
It is thought that follow on attacks would have taken out the oil storage and other facilites. Those second wave of strikes were intially planned as I undertsnad it, but Yamamoto ordered them to withdraw after he heard the damage that had been inflicted.
In the long run it probably would not have made much of a difference. But in the short run, it sure would have hampered and slowed initial operations being staged out of the Hawaiin Islands.
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
Yamamoto was a fine Admiral Pearl harbour was a text book manoeuvre but the way he thought was that he has scored 90% damage with minimal losses why risk possible losses (due to element of suprise being lost) to get another 10% more? But the point was that that extra 10% was really important
The crack Japanese fighter aces were reporting back huge losses Imperial Japan was happy and they regrouped and left
Japan had only a few hundred very highly skilled pilots who had seen war since 1931 and 1937 in China and South Asia they had developed thier skills and mastered the art of carrier opps, but they were rigid and institutionalised never passing on thier knowledge and experience, when killed they took it all with them, most of them killed at Mid way
In all honestly Imperial Japan wasn't fit for war against a resource rich nation they were ok against weak nations, although very deadly at the middle scale level on a large scale the overall larger stratedgy was not in thier favour
Having said that they Zero fighter pilots ran circles around the RAF and Royal Navy Fleet in Asia, Britain was totally outclassed by thier Japanese counterparts they almost seemed invincible in 1941 to summer of 1942
shen
Senior Member
I've been reading Retribution by Max Hastings. He proposed an interesting hypothetical scenario. What would've happened if Japan just went after the European colonies, Malaysia, Indonesia, Burma,etc, and left the American colony Philippines alone? It is not a given that FDR could've obtain the domestic support to go to war against Japan.
Last edited:
kwaigonegin
Colonel
Equipment standpoint the Axis hardware were better than the Allies. the Zero, the Messershermidt Bf-109, Junkers dive bombers, Panzers, Tiger tanks etc were superior to Allied weapons of similar nature especially early in the war. Their pilots were also better skilled until most were killed off mid war...A Sherman in a one on one battle would have NO CHANCE against a Panzer or Tiger. Heck the Germans even have the Sturmgewehr 44 which many considered the world's first assault rifle.
The Germans also had the Me 262 which if introduced even a year earlier would've wipe allied fighters and bombers off the skies of Europe. Luckily they came late when Germany's industrial capacity had greatly diminished and their relatively small numbers were insignificant to the overall war effort.
The Bismark and Yamato/Mushashi were even more capable than the Iowa class battleships!!
Last edited:
lightspeed
Junior Member
even if the US did not get involved militarily, the lend-lease aid to the Allies would still enable them to repel the Axis advances in the longer run.
the US public were generally supportive of the British and Chinese cause by 1941, thanks to the extensive work done by the British and Chinese friends in the media and press. FDR with some skillful political maneuvering should obtain the required domestic support to go to war against Japan and Germany sooner or later.
shen
Senior Member
By the time Japan invaded SE Asia, France and Netherlands have been defeated in Europe, Britain stood alone against Nazi Germany and threatened with invasion. I don't think any European countries could've done much to stop the Japanese even with American lend-lease aid.
FDR was determined to standup against Japanese aggression, but with the strong isolationist attitude in the United States, he would've had a much harder time to convince Americans to go to war if Japan didn't directly attack the US.
Eventually, the USA would've probably entered the war, but Japan could've had a few more years to consolidate its conquest in Asia.