Jump to content


Photo

Should The Japanese Have Followed The Pearl Harbor Attack With A Land Assault?


  • Please log in to reply
194 replies to this topic

#41 seahawk

seahawk

    military loving leftist peace monkey

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,247 posts

Posted 28 March 2020 - 0807 AM

What do they gain. An asset they can hardly supply and that adds nothing to the war effort.


  • 0

#42 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,022 posts

Posted 28 March 2020 - 0912 AM

We should come up with some new Ww2 alt-history ideas that havent been done to death yet. On one hand, I agree that the ones that have been raised lately are old hat and conclusively proven to just not work, but on the other hand I by no means think the course of Ww2 was set in stone.

 

One possible AH would be what other options Eisenhower had for a fall offensive instead of Market-Garden, and how it might have looked. 


  • 0

#43 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,022 posts

Posted 28 March 2020 - 0915 AM

A slightly less insane scenario is in "WI Mahan ran the Pacific War". It proposes landing on the island east of Oahu that was apparently way less defended and offered sufficient open areas for improvised airfields.
 

 

Wow, that sounds like an interesting idea.  Gee, why didn't I think of that?  :D


Edited by glenn239, 28 March 2020 - 0916 AM.

  • 0

#44 wendist

wendist

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 729 posts

Posted 28 March 2020 - 1006 AM

What do they gain. An asset they can hardly supply and that adds nothing to the war effort.

Do you mean the Norway scenario? The German occupation of Norway secured continued import of iron ore. The question is then whether the iron ore was worth the cost of occupying Norway. A second question would be if Hitler put more resources into Norway than what was strictly necessary to defend it. 


  • 0

#45 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,022 posts

Posted 28 March 2020 - 1058 AM

 

 

Aside from that, yes, there was no way Japan could have carried out a successful invasion any of the Hawaiian islands.

 

 

One wonders why the US bothered putting two divisions and hundreds of coastal guns on Oahu if, as you say, the Japanese couldn't even invade an undefended island.  How do you figure the OP's 15,000  man force couldn't take Kauai from what was probably about a battalion of US troops?  


  • 0

#46 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,876 posts

Posted 28 March 2020 - 1121 AM

 

 

We should come up with some new Ww2 alt-history ideas that havent been done to death yet. On one hand, I agree that the ones that have been raised lately are old hat and conclusively proven to just not work, but on the other hand I by no means think the course of Ww2 was set in stone.

There are so many. 'What if Goering was any good', or 'What if Hitler listened to advice', or 'What if we had gone to war with Germany in 1938'. We touched on that one about a year ago, but it didnt get very far.

 

I used to play Hearts of Iron (the latest one is crap so save your money), and it really gives you an alternative view on grand strategy. Some things were set in stone that Germany had to do (It had to attack the west, it had to support Italy), but I found it saved a lot of resources not invading Norway for example. That and invading the Baltic states early before the Soviets could get their foot in the door. Probably impractical politically, but it would have took them almost to the door of St Petersburg before firing a shot.

 

Not invading Norway opens up the possibility that the British succeed in cutting of German import of Swedish iron ore, does the game take that fact into consideration? Maybe the win in resources isn't that great in total?

If I'm allowed to be "Mr Picky" the name of the city was Leningrad at that time. :P  

 

It was always St Petersburg to some of us. :P

 

There was an interesting debate on 'We have ways', where they discuss the British manipulating the Tungsten price on the world stock market. A good idea, but unfortunately it didnt matter a damn to a dictatorship.


  • 0

#47 Rich

Rich

    intellectual bully ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,766 posts

Posted 28 March 2020 - 1207 PM

 

 

 

Aside from that, yes, there was no way Japan could have carried out a successful invasion any of the Hawaiian islands.

 

 

One wonders why the US bothered putting two divisions and hundreds of coastal guns on Oahu if, as you say, the Japanese couldn't even invade an undefended island.  How do you figure the OP's 15,000  man force couldn't take Kauai from what was probably about a battalion of US troops?  

 

Always with the straw men Moriarty...the question is not if the Japanese could capture an undefended or barely defended island...but why they would want to do so. And yes, I know all you're specious TINKERBELL justifications based upon hindsight; I'm asking why the Japanese in 1941 would suddenly decide "no we don't really need all these resources we are planning to seize in Indochina and the Dutch East Indies, it would be much better if we stripped the necessary forces from that endeavor in order to land a division on Kauai and in the process throw away any possibility of surprising and inflicting significant damage on the American Pacific Fleet".


  • 0

#48 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,491 posts

Posted 28 March 2020 - 1401 PM

The 2 divisions at the time were actually the leavings of a square division chopped into a pair of triangular divisions, with a National Guard regiment added to both.

 

Defeating them would require abandoning strikes on other targets for later, or the peace negotiations. A very different strategy.


  • 0

#49 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,309 posts

Posted 28 March 2020 - 1603 PM

 

What do they gain. An asset they can hardly supply and that adds nothing to the war effort.

Do you mean the Norway scenario? The German occupation of Norway secured continued import of iron ore. The question is then whether the iron ore was worth the cost of occupying Norway. A second question would be if Hitler put more resources into Norway than what was strictly necessary to defend it. 

 

 

It was that and also a base which helped menace the Murmansk convoys (obviously with only became evident after 1941) and it undoubtedly tied up more RN resources than German resources.


  • 0

#50 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,000 posts

Posted 28 March 2020 - 1635 PM

Also US resources, as a US fast BB was dedicated to the Atlantic Fleet to guard against any breakout of the Tirpitz. I think New Jersey was the last to be so tasked.


  • 0

#51 Markus Becker

Markus Becker

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,391 posts

Posted 28 March 2020 - 1656 PM

A slightly less insane scenario is in "WI Mahan ran the Pacific War". It proposes landing on the island east of Oahu that was apparently way less defended and offered sufficient open areas for improvised airfields.

 
Wow, that sounds like an interesting idea.  Gee, why didn't I think of that?  :D

Looks like I overlooked something. It happens when using the smart phone. Small screen and all that.
  • 0

#52 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,351 posts

Posted 28 March 2020 - 2058 PM

The only dumber brain fart than trying to invade Hawaii was Japan going to war against the U.S. and the British Empire in the first place. Getting involved in the Hawaiian debacle would mean no Indonesian oil grabbing expedition nor Philippines "liberation." In the book "Shattered Sword" the authors state the problems the Japanese had and would have had against a determined, well-armed defence. Look at the problems the Japanese had against Wake Island.

I'd imagine many here could expect coming from me some points of disagreement but rather than just not responding at all, I'm just going to go with I disagree and leave it at that.
 
Aside from that, yes, there was no way Japan could have carried out a successful invasion any of the Hawaiian islands.

Thank you Jason

Unfortunately I have a feeling that I'm going to oddman out myself again later but thanks for that.
  • 0

#53 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,491 posts

Posted 28 March 2020 - 2155 PM

The only dumber brain fart than trying to invade Hawaii was Japan going to war against the U.S. and the British Empire in the first place.

 

The name of the Japanese officer who brought up the possibility of fighting one of the world's 2 preeminent naval powers at a time has been lost to history, unfortunately.


  • 0

#54 seahawk

seahawk

    military loving leftist peace monkey

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,247 posts

Posted 29 March 2020 - 0224 AM

 

What do they gain. An asset they can hardly supply and that adds nothing to the war effort.

Do you mean the Norway scenario? The German occupation of Norway secured continued import of iron ore. The question is then whether the iron ore was worth the cost of occupying Norway. A second question would be if Hitler put more resources into Norway than what was strictly necessary to defend it. 

 

Well, Norway at least had resources that were theoretically valuable to the war effort and the strategic position was close to Germany and in addition it later put the supply of Murmansk under some pressure.

 

Hawaii on the other had, has nothing the Japanese could not get easier in Asia, is far away from the mainland and does not really limit the flow of supply to the USA either.


  • 0

#55 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,652 posts

Posted 29 March 2020 - 0316 AM

 

 

What do they gain. An asset they can hardly supply and that adds nothing to the war effort.

Do you mean the Norway scenario? The German occupation of Norway secured continued import of iron ore. The question is then whether the iron ore was worth the cost of occupying Norway. A second question would be if Hitler put more resources into Norway than what was strictly necessary to defend it. 

 

Well, Norway at least had resources that were theoretically valuable to the war effort and the strategic position was close to Germany and in addition it later put the supply of Murmansk under some pressure.

 

Hawaii on the other had, has nothing the Japanese could not get easier in Asia, is far away from the mainland and does not really limit the flow of supply to the USA either.

 

In some ways was Hawaii the Iceland of the Pacific or were Pacific distances too great?  Hawaii is far enough away so it did not fill a role in the same way that Iceland did in the GIUK Gap.


  • 0

#56 Sardaukar

Sardaukar

    Cynical Finnish Elk Eating Ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,729 posts

Posted 29 March 2020 - 0339 AM

Shattered Sword also pointed out that capturing Hawaii and Midway would strain Japanese commercial shipping massively. Mainly because there was nothing to ship back but still need to supply units. So, ships would sail on ballast when coming back, which is hideously ineffective.


  • 0

#57 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,652 posts

Posted 30 March 2020 - 0508 AM

Actually the title of this thread is incorrect.  It asked 'Should?' when the real question is 'Could?"


  • 0

#58 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,876 posts

Posted 30 March 2020 - 0638 AM

Alrighty then, should they have made a greater effort to take the Aleutians, and invade America via Alaska?

: :P


  • 0

#59 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,022 posts

Posted 30 March 2020 - 1122 AM

Shattered Sword also pointed out that capturing Hawaii and Midway would strain Japanese commercial shipping massively. Mainly because there was nothing to ship back but still need to supply units. So, ships would sail on ballast when coming back, which is hideously ineffective.

 

I seem to recall that Shattered Sword argued that the Japanese should not attempt to take Hawaii because they needed the NEI resources, next they argued that US industrial potential made it impossible that Japan could win a long war, making their NEI resources as vital argument somewhat redundant.

 

A Hawaii return run had nothing but pineapples and prisoners and scrap metal, so not efficient.  The only efficient offensive if utilizing shipping on the return leg at maximum potential was the objective would be in the Indian Ocean.  Ships there could carry war material from Japan to Singapore, and return with raw materials from the NEI.


  • 0

#60 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,316 posts

Posted 30 March 2020 - 1140 AM

Alrighty then, should they have made a greater effort to take the Aleutians, and invade America via Alaska?
: :P


If the Soviets and then the Chinese - er I mean the North Koreans could do it . . .
  • 0