If the Japanese had not struck at Pearl, but did strike everywhere else on Dec 7/8 (philippines, etc), what would the US respose be? The Japanese were beating on a limited US response, but Pearl Harbor backfired on them. They might have been able to trn it into a kind of vietnam for the US, a long, drawn out war for the US, no one really wanting to fight for those small islands in the Pacific. The focus would be more in Europe.

__________________
There is many a boy here today who looks upon war as all glory, but boys, it is hell. You can bear this warning to generations yet to come. I look upon war with horror. -William Tecumseh Sherman.

If the Japanese attack the Philippines (which was where everyone expected them to attack, anyway) it would have meant war with the US. Now they’re at war with the US and the Pacific Fleet is intact . . . oops. As for Europe, remember Germany and Italy declared war on the US first. Who’s to say they’d do that again after Japan’s now strategic blunder?

War Plan Orange was developed for just this eventuality.

Regards,

Rich

__________________
I wonder what this button does . . .

I'm not so sure... would the US units, destroyed in Pearl Harbor, have made a very significant difference?

__________________
If someone tries to remove the speck in your right eye, will you turn to him the other also?

Maybe, maybe not, but at least they wouldn't be starting in the hole.

__________________
I wonder what this button does . . .

The biggest change without Pearl Harbor, for the Japanese, would have been the lack of outrage in the US that forced a unconditional surrender mentality to the surface. Without Pearl Harbor Japan might have been able to negotiate a surrender sooner with the US than actually occured. Had this been the case the US might have ended WW II without using nuclear weapons.
It certainly would have had little change on events in the first few months of the war.
The carriers would have still carried out raids just as they did. The battle line would have been held in Hawaiian waters as it was originally (there were 9 operational BB's in the Pacific based at Hawaii in May 1942 with 3 - 4 more available on the West coast or in transit from the Atlantic).
So, it really would have had little military impact but could have had a significant political one.

How much did the losses of Pearl Harbor actually hurt the US navy?

__________________
If someone tries to remove the speck in your right eye, will you turn to him the other also?

It realy after thinking about it did very little real damage sence only like 2-3 ships weren't repaired!

__________________
Goto wwiif.cjb.net for a new wwii forum.

Realy i think it wasn't that bad sence only 2-3 ships weren't repaired. Plus most of the ships were pertiy much obsolite!

__________________
Goto wwiif.cjb.net for a new wwii forum.

The losses of Pearl Harbor did not really physically effect the US Fleet. It's often said the battlefleet was destroyed, nothing could be further from the truth, many of the battleships were damaged, but only a small number (3 I believe, and all that were never repaired were very very old, the newer ships were in the Atlantic Fleet) were not repaired, the carriers were fully intact, amazingly the oil reserves were still there (Japanese oversight in planning, the reserves there were larger then Japans own), the only serious loss was in aircraft.

But it was the psychological impact that doomed the outlying US forces in places like the Philippines and Wake. The US Commanders did not want to risk any more of their ships after this fearful blow, after all, what if another confrontation produced the same results. In the end the US was afraid, and this paralyzed the Pacific Fleet. Kimmel seemed to be getting back on his feet, and organized a relief force for Wake, but once he was replaced, his replacement cancelled the plan. Had Wake been relieved, it's likely the relief force (Which was 2 carriers strong), would have continued on to the Philippines and they would not have been cutoff.

__________________
- Your freindly neighborhood cynic

Guess the Japanese manage to destroy the entire fleet of Pearl Harbor. Guess further this would involve the 2 carriers not stationed there at that time. Guess further they inflict maximum damage on the oilfields.

What will be the consequences? What impact on the war will this have?

__________________
If someone tries to remove the speck in your right eye, will you turn to him the other also?

Only 2 were not repaired: Arizona and Oklahoma. The Oklahoma was raised to clear the harbor and sank being towed to a West Coast scrap yard.
The only other ship not raised was the target vessel Utah.
By Midway (6 months after Pearl Harbor roughly) the US had 10 battleships in the Pacific. This gave the US an actual firepower advantage over the 11 ship Japanese battleline (the had only 2 16" and one 18" BB in service and, 4 of their "battleships" were actually fairly weak WW I vintage battlecruisers similar to HMS Tiger in design). The Atlantic fleet only retained the oldest two classes of BB while all newer vessels went to the Pacific (Arkansas, New York and Texas remained in the Atlantic).
It wasn't lack of battleships but rather an already realized fact that carriers were the primary offensive weapon of the fleet even before Pearl Harbor. The US had already devised new formations for air defense, a scheme of fighter control using radar and, tactics for employment of carriers that were far ahead of what the Japanese doctrine had. This is why the Japanese lost every carrier battle against the US after Pearl Harbor (a couple were close to draws like Coral Sea).

Man that is 3 you listed!!!

__________________
Goto wwiif.cjb.net for a new wwii forum.