No Pacific Fleet

tikilal · #1 (**permalink**) September 21st, 2007, 02:09 PM

What if the US had transfered all of its Navy to the Atlantic? Would Japan still have seen the US as a threat to the Southern Operation? Would the attack against Pearl Harbor been canceled/modified? What if?

Za Rodinu · #2 (**permalink**) September 21st, 2007, 02:42 PM

IMHO that would be seen as a tremendous sign of weakness, and ad axcellent incentive for action ASAP.

Sloniksp · #3 (**permalink**) September 21st, 2007, 02:43 PM

I would agree with Za here

PzJgr · #4 (**permalink**) September 21st, 2007, 03:50 PM

That would depend on the foreign policy that the US would take. For example, if the US was still insisting on Japan's withdrawal from China, then I would think that Japan would still consider the US as a threat and would take advantage of the missing fleet and take the US possessions in the Pacific.

If the US was not making any demands of Japan, then it may leave the east pacific alone and head southwards while strengthening its fleet for the future clash with the US.

Mussolini · #5 (**permalink**) September 21st, 2007, 04:29 PM

Hmmm...I still think Japan would have attacked US bases in the Pacific. They would have realized that the US would have jumped into the war at some point. Instead of a Pearl-Harbor Raid, I imagine they would have landed troops at Midway and Pearl instead, with the US having a weak Navy in the Pacific (if it was in the Atlantic) which would definitely help Japan secure those raw materials it needed so badly while, at the same time, eliminating positions of threat to its expanding borders.

PzJgr · #6 (**permalink**) September 21st, 2007, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mussolini

Hmmm...I still think Japan would have attacked US bases in the Pacific. They would have realized that the US would have jumped into the war at some point. Instead of a Pearl-Harbor Raid, I imagine they would have landed troops at Midway and Pearl instead, with the US having a weak Navy in the Pacific (if it was in the Atlantic) which would definitely help Japan secure those raw materials it needed so badly while, at the same time, eliminating positions of threat to its expanding borders.

That is one direction to take. I would think that they would take advantage of the missing fleet by consolitating their areas and build up their fleet. Taking Hawaii, Midway stretches their supply lines and make it difficult to hold unless they leave a considerably sized fleet at Hawaii. To do this, they would have to thin out their fleet closer to home.

It is a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation.

Mussolini · #7 (**permalink**) September 21st, 2007, 04:41 PM

Still, I think that they would have done it. I think i read somewhere that part of their initial plan was to land troops in Hawaii, but i can not recall why they would do so.

You are right that their supplies would be stretched, but the US would have had a hard time trying to retake the Islands and Midway. Its out of range of most bombers and fighters from the early part of the war (in relation to the West Coast of the US) and skipping over Midway would cut its supplies off. I think a token naval force along with a division of Infantry in Hawaii would have been able to last long enough for the Japanese to consolidate its forces and the other Islands and be in a better situation than it was historically.

PzJgr · #8 (**permalink**) September 21st, 2007, 04:54 PM

That is possible and another route they could and probably would have taken. The opportunity to take a piece (valuable at that) of American soil is too tempting to pass by.

FramerT · #9 (**permalink**) September 21st, 2007, 05:13 PM

How far is the US going to let Japan go before they declare war? Phillipine Islands? To be sure if Japan got that far, the US would re-direct the fleet back to the Pacific.

Seadog · #10 (**permalink**) September 21st, 2007, 08:01 PM

They would have made quick workout of the Philipines and taken Midway. I think they would then concentrate on isolating Australia and taking Hawaii. From Hawaii, they would use Pearl as a launch base to take out the Panama Canal

Sloniksp · #11 (**permalink**) September 21st, 2007, 08:03 PM

Yes I must say that the Panama Canal would have probably been their number one target?

Richard · #12 (**permalink**) September 21st, 2007, 08:27 PM

Japan would have been angry and worried that no one was home on Dec 7th or so the American threat would be much more sooner than they planned for, so would Japan had changed there plans of a land grab?

Za Rodinu · #13 (**permalink**) September 21st, 2007, 08:59 PM

How far is the Panama Canal from Hawaii?

Also, I don't know what measure of success the Japs would have in Hawaii, the place was already half take over by Portugee immigrants

Slipdigit · #14 (**permalink**) September 22nd, 2007, 04:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Za Rodinu

How far is the Panama Canal from Hawaii?

Also, I don't know what measure of success the Japs would have in Hawaii, the place was already half take over by Portugee immigrants

1. 8-9000 miles, a heck of lot further than from Japan to Hawaii. That's good stretch for a country that had issues trying to maintain a fleet off the coast of India for any length of time.
Unless Slava was trying to say what they would try to do is make an appearance, lob some car-sized explosive projectiles at the Pacific-side locks etc and then move on after laying waste to them. Of course, to do this they would have to face some serious heavy artillery like the 16in guns of Battery Haan, Battery Newton and others, 14in railway guns of Battery 8, a whole passel of 155s all over the place, plus a huge number of smaller diameter arty pieces. It would have been a tough mission for them.

2. Heck, they breed like cockroaches and are about as welcome.

Za Rodinu · #15 (**permalink**) September 22nd, 2007, 07:43 AM

1 - that makes it sound a bit ridiculous, doesn't it?

2- Now you go wash your mouth with soap!

skunk works · #16 (**permalink**) September 22nd, 2007, 11:54 AM

That would turn the Pacific into a Japanese Sea.
Za said it, instant action and expansion along the entire Pacific rim. By By Australia, Indo China, Indonesia, all islands, the Canal, Aleutians & Alaska, Canada, Oregon, Washington, California, Mexico....
Trust towards a nation that had been expanding into/bombing China since 1937, would be PC Suicide.

tikilal · #17 (**permalink**) September 22nd, 2007, 02:53 PM

Excellent comments. I would like to add some more food for thought.

Pearl was attacked to protect the flank of the Japanese Southern Operation. If the fleet had not been there I doubt that any attempt to attack it would have been made. The Japanese cabinet tried to cancel the attack at Pearl Harbor and was only approved because Yamamoto threatened his retirement if the plan was not approved. If an invasion was attempted it would have required around 50,000 men. Men sorely needed in the South. Hawaii unlike Wake, Midway or the Philippines had an extensive bunker system, similar to Tarawa and Iwo Jima, an assault on the islands of Hawaii would have weakened the flank of the Southern Operation not protected it.

Now if the Fleet had not been there, would Japan have tried to attack the Philippines? I and 50/50 on this one, part of me says they would still need to, but the other part recalls the adage “let a sleeping dog lay.” Most of the men in the Imperial Japanese Army/Navy new that Japan would loose a war against the US. Would the US have declared war because of further Japanese aggression. Remember that it took Pearl Harbor, to override the large isolationist sentiment.

The Panama Canal would have been a far stretch and as pointed out a tough egg to crack. I personally think that had the Japanese wanted to eliminate this passage way at the out set that it would provide a brilliant first blow. Imagine this four or five cargo ships loaded up with explosives, sail in together and would fill up at least two locks if not more, once a group gets to the center lock, all the ships ram the nearest gate and blow themselves up. Kamikaze attacks. Now this would have destroyed the affected lock if no the entire canal all together with the resulting flood. What do you think?

Carl W Schwamberger · #18 (**permalink**) September 22nd, 2007, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mussolini

Still, I think that they would have done it. I think i read somewhere that part of their initial plan was to land troops in Hawaii, but i can not recall why they would do so.

You are right that their supplies would be stretched, but the US would have had a hard time trying to retake the Islands and Midway. Its out of range of most bombers and fighters from the early part of the war (in relation to the West Coast of the US) and skipping over Midway would cut its supplies off. I think a token naval force along with a division of Infantry in Hawaii would have been able to last long enough for the Japanese to consolidate its forces and the other Islands and be in a better situation than it was historically.

The Japanese Army suggested Hawaii be invaded. A examination of the logistical problems caused the idea to be dropped. As it was the IJN considered the raid a high risk operation and went through with it on the basis of absolute suprise. The IJN leaders calculated the transport & other logisitcs requirements for a sustained campaign in Hawaiian waters would cripple the more important attacks in Indonesia (oil), the Phillpines (secure the sea route to the oil), and Singapore (searoutes agan).

In any case it was expected the US would wussy out after being slapped about for month or two. So, invading Hawaii would be unecessary.

Slipdigit · #19 (**permalink**) September 22nd, 2007, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tikilal

Now if the Fleet had not been there, would Japan have tried to attack the Philippines? I and 50/50 on this one, part of me says they would still need to, but the other part recalls the adage “let a sleeping dog lay.” Most of the men in the Imperial Japanese Army/Navy new that Japan would loose a war against the US. Would the US have declared war because of further Japanese aggression. Remember that it took Pearl Harbor, to override the large isolationist sentiment.

The Panama Canal would have been a far stretch and as pointed out a tough egg to crack. I personally think that had the Japanese wanted to eliminate this passage way at the out set that it would provide a brilliant first blow. Imagine this four or five cargo ships loaded up with explosives, sail in together and would fill up at least two locks if not more, once a group gets to the center lock, all the ships ram the nearest gate and blow themselves up. Kamikaze attacks. Now this would have destroyed the affected lock if no the entire canal all together with the resulting flood. What do you think?

It worked for the HMS Campbelltown at St Nazaire, I don't see why it would work at least partially for the canal. Interesting thought, I hope you haven't given an idea to terrorists today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl W Schwamberger

The Japanese Army suggested Hawaii be invaded. A examination of the logistical problems caused the idea to be dropped. As it was the IJN considered the raid a high risk operation and went through with it on the basis of absolute suprise. The IJN leaders calculated the transport & other logisitcs requirements for a sustained campaign in Hawaiian waters would cripple the more important attacks in Indonesia (oil), the Phillpines (secure the sea route to the oil), and Singapore (searoutes agan).

In any case it was expected the US would wussy out after being slapped about for month or two. So, invading Hawaii would be unecessary.

If they had a hard time coming up with manpower to take and hold Hawaii, can you imagine the difficulties the would have had trying to provision it, with it being so far from most of their other holdings? They barely had enough shipping to sustain their current holdings, without tying up enough ships sailing to Hawaii.

tikilal · #20 (**permalink**) September 22nd, 2007, 09:52 PM

I try not to help the terrorists too much.

FYI Japanse merchant/supply/tanker ships always have Maru in their name which means round or circle. None of the Japanese I have spoken with know why this is but I think it is interesting.