 |
| |
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:16
|
|
Regarding some of the 'what if' history put forth by David, Chris and IIRC Seeker.
David seems to see history as some sort of deterministic exercize, where by merely subtracting an element we can easily come up with another 'correct' answer. Thus by removing the draft in the U.S. it is possible (if he believes his own posts anyway) to determine the course of alternative history. This is problematic at best, where a single 'what if' is addressed and speculated about. The magnitude of the complexity of the events David speculated about in his first post make these sorts of assumptions very tenuous. These aren't just battles or campaigns, but entire wars. When done in a compound fashion the speculations are virtually meaningless.
Addressing the historical points individually with an eye firmly on the point made above, I have to put myself in the doubting camp along with David and Seeker regarding the viability of a Japanese attack on the U.S. mainland. I tend to agree with both of these posters that even a concentrated effort on Hawaii would have been unlikely to have been successful. While there is always a small chance that something could work by a lucky convergence of events, I wouldn't bet a dollar that the Japanese could have siezed the Hawaiian islands, nor would I risk a penny on the prospects for a Japanese attack on the mainland of the U.S. capable of taking out both Seattle and Los Angeles. Chris' points about Singapore and Hong Kong falling are comparing apples and oranges, because both were islands cut off from supply, and neither were defended by people who were fighting for their homeland.
The analysis provided earlier by the other doubters is good, especially the points about the lack of available forces and the political intransigence of the Japanese Army. Attacking Hawaii would have been a reasonbly prudent move had the Japanese had enough internal cohesion to properly plan and outfit an expedition to do so at the outset of the war. Of course they did not, and also could not have predicted that the Pearl Harbor attacks would have neutralized the U.S. navy, which btw was only a partial truth to begin with. Another problem for the operation has to do with staging. There were no decent sized Japanese controlled ports anywhere near Hawaii. Resupply for a protracted battle would have had to come all the way from the home islands directly, leaving the landing forces fighting with their basic ammunition load for a period of weeks, or stripping the troops responsible for all of the other operations across the Pacific of their supplies in order to make up the shortfall.
On the plus side, seizing the islands and mopping up Palmyra and the other small islands to the south would have been the sort of strategic blow that might have actually given the Japanese a chance to negotiate a decent peace for themselves. A good first move might have been grabbing Johnston Island in conjunction with the Pearl Harbor attack. It was undefended and had enough airfield capacity for the superior Japanese pilots and aircraft (Bettys and Zeros) to keep a lot of pressure on Pearl Harbor while supplies and forces were built up for eventual operations in the Hawaiian islands proper. While Japanese fighters could escort their bombers attacking Pearl Harbor etc., the allied bombers stationed there could not strike Johnston at all in numbers, and the few who could reach it would have had to fly in without escorts. All in all though, it is a very unlikely scenario.
I am not sufficiently convinced that either side would have 'won' WWI had the U.S. not intervened at all, though I think even with a purely volunteer U.S. element the odds have to strongly favor the Allies. I do not think that the draft was the decisive element, though if Germany had not completely collapsed I do think that a 'tie' would have been much more likely. Unfortunately none of the Governments involved had the courage to tell their people that the millions of killed had been sacrificed in order to uphold the status quo. The odds favor Chris' interpretation of events, though I'm not convinced that the answers are as cut and dried as either Chris or David state. This war in 1918 resembled two beat up fighters leaning on each other in the 12th round. One is ahead on points, but if he slips to the floor there is no guarantee that he can even stand up again.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:16
|
|
Are draft dodgers traitors? No, the Constitution defines traitor/treason and that definition does not apply to people who refuse to fight. Those who dodged the Vietnam War did the right thing because Congress never declared war (which is why they called it a "police action") and because the draft is immoral. And I will never support Democrats or Republicans for oppressing those who refused to fight in their illegal war(s).
I don't have the right to force you to risk your life or die for me, therefore the draft is immoral. But since we have a volunteer force, court martialing people who volunteered and refused to fight - thereby violating a contract - is appropriate.
Would I volunteer to fight for "my country"? Hell no! I would volunteer to fight for myself, my family, my friends, and for those people I consider worthy of such a sacrifice - and that doesn't include the people who've outlawed my freedom -Democrats and Republicans (even though they would benefit from my sacrifice). And obviously I would only volunteer once I determined those people I listed favorably were actually in danger from a foreign enemy, not because politicians in this country have geo-political goals that have nothing to do with our freedom.
While I'm sympathetic with those coerced to fight in illegal wars, I have no sympathy for people who condemn others for not risking their live's for us. How ******* arrogant! "You won't die for me? Shame on you!" That's what these people are saying!!!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
 |
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
Sikander,
quote:
Chris' points about Singapore and Hong Kong falling are comparing apples and oranges, because both were islands cut off from supply, and neither were defended by people who were fighting for their homeland. |
You can simply cut in any large Chinese city if you like, the principles are the same, isolate the target and reduce it.
I never said it was likely, but that it was within Japan's capability.
David lauched into a large scenario, even getting into specific ships, but a US west coast attack would have likely included a Panama canal attack (this was planned, Flying boats refueled by subs were to carry it out, in fact, Japan tried to convince Germany to fuel their flying boats with Nazi subs for an attack on NYC!
This was never tried, however, it was felt the results wouldn't match the effort). The Pacific thus isolated, an attack on the US mainland would have been a very real possibility. Also, for David, the Japanese armor (type 97 Chi-ha) had a 57mm cannon, capable of destroying both Lees and Shermans, as was proved on Saipan and other islands, so your bit about USA armor is totally inaccurate. Add to it, Japan would have air superiority over the invasion area, making armored reinforcement difficult at best to the WC.
It must also be understood that Japan was outnumbered in the Phillipennes, Malaysia, Burma, and Indonesia, yet managed to win via tactics and airpower and seapower against larger enemies.
The forces to launch a US attack certainly would have come form China, the Army wasn't as cut and dried as David thinks, the Japanese generals might very well have gone for USA over China, hell, they wanted Australia over China! He's looking back in hindsight, we are speaking in terms of what ifs.
David also far over-estimates the U-Boat campagin's effectivness in WWI, as Britain never even declared a crisis state because of them. Unterseeboot technology was not yet what it would be in WWII, U-Boats had short ranges and Britain was producing flying boats and other weapons to deal with them. No way would Britain have been starved out in WWI.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
Chris, a few points...
First, on WW1, sorry I can't give you an exact citation, I'd have to go look it up in one of my books, but a British Admiral was quoted as telling a US naval officer that if the U-Boats weren't checked then Britain could very well lose the war. The American officer had commented that, looking at the losses incurred by U-Boats, that it appeared Britain was losing. And 887,000 tons of shipping lost in one month is significant, considering that the necessary cushion for British merchant shipping was, IIRC, 15 million tons, and they only started the war out with around 20 million.
A Panama Canal campaign still wouldn't have been feasible without holding Hawaii first, for logistical reasons - I mean Panama is what, 7000 miles from the Home Islands?
As to Japanese tanks being superior, you might indeed be correct, my understanding though was that at least early on in the war (1942 as opposed to 1944 when Saipan took place) Japanese tanks were terrible, they even would have had trouble with US Lees and Soviet T-26s.
Besides, a Panama campaign would have looked probably similar to a Hawaii campaign - except of course Panama is closer to the US than Hawaii is, on the same landmass, even, and the same problems to Japanese air superiority would have existed in Panama too.
Remember, Chris, that the US could make war plans to invade Mars, but that doesn't mean it can or will ever happen.
Finally, I find it very improbable that the IJA would have opted for the US over China - and if they ever REALLY wanted Australia, at least early on, they could have taken it if they had just concentrated all six heavy carriers and significant Army assets, but the Army was too tied up in China, with over a million men in that theater. It would have been a big blow to Japanese pride to withdraw from China, and it was NOT likely - especially as the war went on, that was the only place they were making big advances.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
|
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
This is gonna piss off AH, but...good!  quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Chris, a few points...
First, on WW1, sorry I can't give you an exact citation, I'd have to go look it up in one of my books, but a British Admiral was quoted as telling a US naval officer that if the U-Boats weren't checked then Britain could very well lose the war. The American officer had commented that, looking at the losses incurred by U-Boats, that it appeared Britain was losing. And 887,000 tons of shipping lost in one month is significant, considering that the necessary cushion for British merchant shipping was, IIRC, 15 million tons, and they only started the war out with around 20 million. |
David, they themselves were producing almost 2 million tons of shipping by 1918, and had long since turned the corner in loss/gain ratio.
quote:
A Panama Canal campaign still wouldn't have been feasible without holding Hawaii first, for logistical reasons - I mean Panama is what, 7000 miles from the Home Islands? |
You misunderstand, not a campagin to take the place, an attack to destroy the locks on the canal itself, it would take years to repair this, and the USA greatly feared it.
Taking Hawaii wouldn't be needed for this.
quote:
As to Japanese tanks being superior, you might indeed be correct, my understanding though was that at least early on in the war (1942 as opposed to 1944 when Saipan took place) Japanese tanks were terrible, they even would have had trouble with US Lees and Soviet T-26s. |
Not superior, capable of getting a gun kill on a Sherman.
All Japanese armor suffered from low armor plate, unreliable engines and slow speed. Lees and Shermans were far superior, but my point is they wern't invulerable to the Japanese weapons systems.
quote:
Besides, a Panama campaign would have looked probably similar to a Hawaii campaign - except of course Panama is closer to the US than Hawaii is, on the same landmass, even, and the same problems to Japanese air superiority would have existed in Panama too. |
Again, I said, raid, not an opperation to take the place, with the canal damaged, the pacific is isolated, there is no need to phyiscally take the place.
quote:
Remember, Chris, that the US could make war plans to invade Mars, but that doesn't mean it can or will ever happen. |
Your assertion (long since proven wrong) was that the USA mainland was never threatened, you now see it was, so leave this were it belongs. 
quote:
Finally, I find it very improbable that the IJA would have opted for the US over China - and if they ever REALLY wanted Australia, at least early on, they could have taken it if they had just concentrated all six heavy carriers and significant Army assets, but the Army was too tied up in China, with over a million men in that theater. It would have been a big blow to Japanese pride to withdraw from China, and it was NOT likely - especially as the war went on, that was the only place they were making big advances. |
You have a poor understanging here, if Coral sea was a victory, Japan would have continued it's invasion of Port Moresby (The reason Coral sea was fought was to stop this invasion, the Japanese turned back, which is why it's considered a US victory even though the IJN only lost a light carrier as comparred to the USN lossing a heavy CV), this invasion was phase one of, you guessed it, an opperation to seize Australia.
Your thinking of the IJA pre Peral harbor, when it was China obbsessed, not post Pearl, when they saw new opprotunities.
Also, I believe your unaware, that Japan's Kwangtung Army (supposedly guarding the Soviet border with China) was systematically stripped of forces first for New Guinea, than to reinforce the Phillipennes in 44, so japan had no problem while lossing moving forces from China, and therefore, would certainly have ZERO porblems with moving said forces in Victory.
By 1945, this so called "mighty" army was a shell, that the Soviets shattered in less than a week.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
Chris, I think we are misunderstanding each other on a few points, but anyway...
quote:
David, they themselves were producing almost 2 million tons of shipping by 1918, and had long since turned the corner in loss/gain ratio. |
Sure, after US naval assistance started coming into being - but not in early 1917, when the U-Boat menace was at its greatest.
quote:
You misunderstand, not a campagin to take the place, an attack to destroy the locks on the canal itself, it would take years to repair this, and the USA greatly feared it.
Taking Hawaii wouldn't be needed for this. |
Then I concede you the point, I understand what you are saying now...although the IJN would probably take serious losses in and out in such an operation, and the US could still go around South America if they had to.
quote:
Not superior, capable of getting a gun kill on a Sherman.
All Japanese armor suffered from low armor plate, unreliable engines and slow speed. Lees and Shermans were far superior, but my point is they wern't invulerable to the Japanese weapons systems. |
OK, that's my fault, I misstated what I meant - the Japanese would not have transported armor over in large quantities, at least not in the initial waves, more than likely, and the US would have been far superior in armor forces. That was my real point.
quote:
Your assertion (long since proven wrong) was that the USA mainland was never threatened, you now see it was, so leave this were it belongs. |
My point was, plan all you like but until it becomes a credible plan - and everyone but you so far agrees with me that there were no credible plans to invade the US - then it doesn't really matter.
quote:
Also, I believe your unaware, that Japan's Kwangtung Army (supposedly guarding the Soviet border with China) was systematically stripped of forces first for New Guinea, than to reinforce the Phillipennes in 44, so japan had no problem while lossing moving forces from China, and therefore, would certainly have ZERO porblems with moving said forces in Victory.
By 1945, this so called "mighty" army was a shell, that the Soviets shattered in less than a week. |
I'm not talking about the Kwangtung Army - that was indeed stripped and easily overrun by the Soviets...I'm talking about the Japanese Army in China, not Manchukuko/Manchuria, which would have to be drawn on for operations against Hawaii or the Continental US.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
Chris, we are not clear because I don't feel you have demonsrated that a Japanese invasion of the continental US was anything more than a pipe dream, nor have you shown that an invasion fo Hawaii - while possible to attempt - would even have been successful.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
Chris, no, and it isn't just me - Sikander agreed to. Just because Japan had 500,000 troops they COULD have committed, all things being equal, doesn't mean the REALLY could have invaded the US. To do so would have required an invasion of Hawaii, which I've already demonstrated is not likely to succeed. And the timetable against the Continental US would logically HAVE to be mid 1943 - when Essex class carriers are already rolling off the production lines, along with superior battleships, Hellcat fighters, etc.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
|
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Chris, no, and it isn't just me - Sikander agreed to. Just because Japan had 500,000 troops they COULD have committed, all things being equal, doesn't mean the REALLY could have invaded the US. To do so would have required an invasion of Hawaii, which I've already demonstrated is not likely to succeed. And the timetable against the Continental US would logically HAVE to be mid 1943 - when Essex class carriers are already rolling off the production lines, along with superior battleships, Hellcat fighters, etc. |
First, he didn't agree it was impossible, and your timetable is off.
It would have been possible in mid 1942, not 1943.
Second, Hawaii is not needed, if the Canal locks are broken, Hawaii becomes untenable as a base if US west coast came under attack.
Third, Japan could certainly project the power to do it, the forces described (7 divisions) were availible in this time frame, Japan would have air superiority over the target area (I pointed this out earlier, and you yourself just confirmed it, US airpower will not be a factor untill late 43, not mid 42), the big what if is wins at Coral sea and Midway, not Japan's ability to pull it off.
This has nothing to do with pipe dreams and fantasys, it's serious anyalisis of force capabilities based on knowledge of both combatants in mid 1942.
Quite frankly, the USA was wide open, and pulled a massive bluff with "watchtower" the invasion of Guadalcanal in august of 1942.
The Japanese became gunshy after they lost at midway, and never attempted another seaborne offensive.
Ah, but if they had won, Midway would have fallen, and Japan could air interdict Hawaii, and an invasion USA was certainly feasible, possible, and within their capability, despite your protestations to the contrary.
One foot note, the trip from east to west coast around South america is Enormus, and the ships would need reprovisioning badly, as they would be at the extremes of their range to try it, add to it, some countries in SA were pro axis, and US forces could not replenish there due to neutarlity laws.
The USN would be hard pressed to stop Japan ANYWHERE if they lost the twin battles, which continue to be the graet what if.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-11-2001 06:39
(In reference to AH's post!)
|