Invasion of the US by Japan

[mogami]

Hi, I don't have all the data but my feeling is that the comment the Allies lost the tactical war big time should have a time period disclaimer attached. Germany suffered high loss in the early campaigns (remember Germany had a population of 64 Million. Soviet Union I think was 164 million. Germany would need to kill 100 million Soviets without loss just to break even but this ignores the 250+ million people who belong to Soviet Allies. )

So Germany won campaigns in 1939 and 1940. But as a result of heavy loss when 1941 campaign began she had only increased the number of her moblie formations by reducing the exisiting ones in size. (And she was unable to maintain even the reduced units)
So this begs the question. Define winning? Germans could count, before they began they must have known that to "win" "Tacticly" they had to inflict "X" (where X=<the number the enemy can not sustain) while losing
less then "Y" (where Y=>the number they can replace) Failure to meet these requirments means they are losing the tactical battle.
Simply quoting loss ratios is meaningless. While not pretty attrition is a stratigic objective. Strategy is defining long term objectives and tactics are the means of achiving those aims.
Risk is a loss multipler or loss reducer. The inferiour force is the one compelled to take risk. It's too bad but it only takes one "Ah crap" to erase 1000 "at a boys" Japan had ah craps at Coral Sea and then a massive one at Midway. Germany had Stalingrad and many other examples. Germany's tactical defeats led to her surrender. Japans defeats led to her surrender. I'd say tacticaly both were soundly whipped.

[stljeffbb]

(snicker).....no I haven't lined up my first PBEM opponent! Interested?

I would try these things out against the computer and figure how to keep the supply going. I'm assuming it will be very hard to sail in the arctic seas, or even the north Pacific. The premise does come from PacWar......with the arctic air rules, its pretty easy to have even the auto convoy supply bases Seattle and north.....but I know this is not PacWar!

I'll just try to figure out a different way to beat it, then I will do it if I can!

Jeff

[pasternakski]

What a bizarre post. Compare shipping losses. Compare surface combatant losses. Compare aircraft losses. Compare troop and ground materiel losses. Compare aircraft carrier losses. Compare ... you get where I'm going here?

[BB57]

I'm very guilty of using 3 words when 10 would be better. My girl friend really hates that. I should have said early war. At some point the allies will attain critical mass just by replacements and new units. Read this somewhere same book?? The Russians didn't have any way to resupply their divisions and didn't realize it until late in the war, they were destroyed and pulled out of combat before they ran out of bullets and beans. The Russians were willing to trade several of their troops for every German. Short term lost the tactical war long term utter defeat for Germany. I realize this is an over simplification. Our side of the globe Japan needs to make hay when the sun shines (first 6 months or so) then make the allies pay dearly when they come calling. Do you have a release date for the first edition yet? [:)]

[Capt. Harlock]

When the victory point ratio exceeds 2:1 Allied and you are forced to surrender unconditionally before June 1942, I predict your opponent will be so overcome that he will actually break down in tears - tears! - of joy and gratitude.

Hmmm... I agree that Japanese units landed on mainland USA will rapidly find themselves in a world of hurt. (Among other things, the natives will relay information on their positions to the American units.) But this isn't PacWar: why should a 2:1 victory point ratio force the end of the game?

[Raverdave]

ORIGINAL: stljeffbb

How about through Dutch Harbor? Will it be much harder to land there (as maybe it should be)? I would bypass Pearl entirely.....except for maybe a diversion.

Thanks,

Jeff

Well there is no problem landing at Dutch Harbour (note the correct spelling[;)]) but it is the new cold weather rules that will get you. Troop effectivness drops way off, ship sys damage climbs faster and squadrons tend to have more aircraft under repair than than those flying..........and THAT is even before you make contact with the enemy.

[sven6345789]

like to put in a quote about tactical inferiority and economic power.
After beeing captured, a german tank officer told his american adversaries

"one of our tanks is as good as ten of yours,..but you ALWAYS have eleven!!"

Axis: no combined strategy of the three nations (not even italy and germany), weak economic basis (germany was strongest) compared to the allies.
Allies: combined strategic offensive (Casablanca, Yalta and the like), strong economic basis (USA beeing the strongest, compare that with germany), manpower (US and SU), and later on good tacticians as well (be it guys like Chukov or guys like Patton or Halsey or Slim).

[PzB74]

What I would have liked to simulate is what would have happened if Germany hadn't declared war on America in 12/41!
Roosevelt would have been hard pressed to declare war on Germany and agreed to a 'Germany first' doctrine.

If Hitler had been just a little notch less megalomaniac, this might very well have been the case.
So how would the force composition in the Pacific then have looked, and would it have been possible to defeat Japan a lot sooner?

I hope someone without a life sits down and design such a campaign.... Would have liked to try it myself, but I kinda don't like to sleep alone [;)]

[mdiehl]

"one of our tanks is as good as ten of yours,..but you ALWAYS have eleven!!"

Yes and an absurd statement on the face of it. But it allowed the defeated Germans to pretend that they were simply elite forces overwhelmed by the crude application of brute force. With respect to armor thickness, penetration and survivability the only really good German tanks were the PzV, PzVI, and JgdPV and VI types. Their most common model, variants on the PzIV, was markedly inferior to the M4 series, as they were comparably armed, but the US M4 types had far superior reliability and thicker armor. Late M4s were more than enough to do for any PzVIA. Trouble with Panthers and PzVIBs however until the US 90mm armed M36s came along.

[Bulldog61]

ORIGINAL: PzB

What I would have liked to simulate is what would have happened if Germany hadn't declared war on America in 12/41!
Roosevelt would have been hard pressed to declare war on Germany and agreed to a 'Germany first' doctrine.

If Hitler had been just a little notch less megalomaniac, this might very well have been the case.
So how would the force composition in the Pacific then have looked, and would it have been possible to defeat Japan a lot sooner?

I hope someone without a life sits down and design such a campaign.... Would have liked to try it myself, but I kinda don't like to sleep alone [;)]

Good question! Let's just look at fighters alone. On Dec 7th the US had 5 squadrons equiuped with P-38E's the 27th, 71st and 94th od the 1st Fighter Group and the 48th and 49th of the 14th Fighter Group; the 50th of the 14th FG was re-equippng with P-38E's They upgraded to P-38F's in late March early April what difference would that have made had they been sent to New Guinea/ Solomons instead of England? Then there is the 3rd Infantry Division that remaind at Ft Lewis (Seattle) until Aug 42 suppose they had been used in the Pacific instead of North Africa?

[Blacksheep]

That's an interesting "what if" varient. However, I wonder if there would have been a significant difference from what actually occurred. It seems to me that during the early days of the Pacific campaign the primary limiter on the US was shipping, both naval and merchant. There wasn't much left in the Atlantic Fleet that wasn't historically commited to the Pacific (i.e., CV4) that would have made a significant impact on a one theater war. Also I question whether the US would have stripped the Atlantic to bolster the effort in the Pacific. By December 1941 Roosevelt had America so deeply involved in the Atlantic (lend-lease, convoy patrol, manning Iceland, etc.) that about the only thing US forces weren't doing was actually bombing Germany. The US presence in the ETO really wasn't all that great until late '42 (Torch, etc) and by that time the crisis in the Pacific (Midway, Guadlecanal) had passed.

[Mike Scholl]

SOLID and ACCURATE observations "Black Sheep". Might have been a bit more
supply and aircraft headed to the Pacific..., but Roosevelt would still have gotten
the US involved in Europe reasonably quickly. Another "Reuben James Incident"
some "Fireside Chats" about how Nazi Germany was the "hub" around which the
Axis revolved. Europe was in the cards, but it would have made FDR's job more
difficult...

[PzB74]

Patton and the yanks at least knew how they were supposed to handle their tanks in 1944.
The way the British tanks were used in and after Normandy left a lot to be desired, and time and again they were
outmanouvered and outfought by flexible and fast moving German units.

Reading about how British, Canadian and Polish armour was used and wasted from D-Day and up until Cobra finally broke the deadlock, is really sad. In walking pace the armour accompanied the infantry, taking tea breaks and resting at night.
The Falaise gap would have been closed earlier and trapped a lot more troops if they had used their tanks to their full potential.

German PzIV's were many times reported as Tigers, and it wasn't really the quality of German tanks
that gave the Allies the biggest headache in the war - it was the way they were used. Guderian once stated that it was the engine that was the tanks most important weapon. I'm quite certain that Germany would have been better of producing only PzIV's from 42 and throughout the war. Greater numbers would have more than made up for the lack of improved quality.

As for the M4 "Ronsons", I must say that it wasn't the best tank produced by the Allies - and not exactly a match for the PzIV - but great numbers made up for this. The Germans never gave the PzIV such negative call names as those given to its M4 counterpart by Allied tankers.

Here's a description I pretty much agree with;

The Sherman was a good reliable medium tank that had a good gun and good anti-infantry protection. Good speed, good range, fair armour. However, it was regrettably high making it an easy target. It’s centre of gravity was also unusually high and increased rolling and capsizing problems in hard terrain. The armour, although rounded but not ideally sloped, was quite poor overall. The gun was short and quite inaccurate. The engine was reliable but unusually loud. Overall, although it was the mainstay of Allied armoured formations from 1942 to the end of the war, it was pretty much cannon-fodder vs German tanks. Even the PzIVs were markedly superior one on one and we’d have to outnumber the Germans as much as 6 to 1 if not more on average. The Germans called their uboats coffins, the Allied tank crews called the Sherman coffins. But hey, reliable and numerous.

[mdiehl]

There we agree, the manner of their use is every bit as important as the quality of the material. This is especially true among well matched types of equipment. Soviet armor was not so terrible. Its use, however, gave the Wehrmacht a consistent advantage.

We must simply agree to disagree in re the PzIV and US M4. The M4 was simply the better tank. Better suspension. Faster. More reliable. Faster turret traverse. Thicker armor with greater slope. Better secondary armament. It's weaknesses... very visible (but what moving tank is not?) and in the earliest models a tendency to burn up. The "ronson" tendency was largely solved by wet-stowage of munitions in later models. When you compare the final products, the M4A3E8 for example vs late Mark IVHs, the "easy eight" is the easy winner, with much thicker armor, a much better gun, and gyrostabilization.

[PzB74]

Do you really think Roosevel would have been able to declare war on Germany within 6 months of Pearl Harbour?
As far as I've understood the majority of Americans considered Europe as a 'European war' and wasn't really interested in joining it, and I think it would have taken more than a few speaches.....

Must admit that I'm uncertain about what resources that could have been added to the Pacific theater by mid 42 though. but I know that the Wasp and other cv's were milling around in the Atlantic in early 42 and that these could have gone straight to the Pacific after Pearl Harbour. Aircraft, troops and shipping made available for "Torch" could also have ended up in the Pacific instead of in Africa.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

SOLID and ACCURATE observations "Black Sheep". Might have been a bit more
supply and aircraft headed to the Pacific..., but Roosevelt would still have gotten
the US involved in Europe reasonably quickly. Another "Reuben James Incident"
some "Fireside Chats" about how Nazi Germany was the "hub" around which the
Axis revolved. Europe was in the cards, but it would have made FDR's job more
difficult...

[mdiehl]

Do you really think Roosevel would have been able to declare war on Germany within 6 months of Pearl Harbour?

I do. The point would have been pressed simply because of US efforts to supply Britain. The US came within a deuce of declaring war on Germany in October 1941 because of the Reuben James incident.

Frankly, I think Hitler's declaration of war was as optimally timed for Germany as it could get. The US was in a state of confusion over the effects of the initial Japanese attack, and in the process of revamping strategy and commands helter-skelter. The US coastal defenses were vulnerable, contributing in part to the incredible success of Operation Drumbeat. Had Hitler not declared war then, it is possible that by mid 1942 the Uboats would have faced a much better-prepared coastal defense and USN convoy system, greatly reducing the effects of the German submarine campaign in 1942 and in the first half of 1943.

[Rendova]

Actually the US tank crews called the Shermans Zippos (after the lighters) becasue they lit the first time every time!

[PzB74]

The 'easy eight' was indeed the best of the Sherman family, but it was introduced in what? october 44! The PzIV's performance peaked already in mid 42 with the introduction of the 75/48 gun. So it was superior to the M4's in more than 2 years, and finally in the last 7-8 months of the war did the latest models match the PIV's performance.

I get your points, but I don't feel that it's possible to deem the M4 a better tank than the PIV - especially since the latter was invented years before the first. (First Sherman produced in september 41, first PzIV in 1936 - there's almost 6 years between these models!!)

A slight qualitative edge in the last models just don't make up for the all cons in the overall picture. The Sherman was almost obsolete already the day it came of the production lines... The PzIV was in production for almost 10 years and a match for most of its opponents almost to the very end.

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

There we agree, the manner of their use is every bit as important as the quality of the material. This is especially true among well matched types of equipment. Soviet armor was not so terrible. Its use, however, gave the Wehrmacht a consistent advantage.

We must simply agree to disagree in re the PzIV and US M4. The M4 was simply the better tank. Better suspension. Faster. More reliable. Faster turret traverse. Thicker armor with greater slope. Better secondary armament. It's weaknesses... very visible (but what moving tank is not?) and in the earliest models a tendency to burn up. The "ronson" tendency was largely solved by wet-stowage of munitions in later models. When you compare the final products, the M4A3E8 for example vs late Mark IVHs, the "easy eight" is the easy winner, with much thicker armor, a much better gun, and gyrostabilization.

[Mr.Frag]

Bah to all of you, give me a russian tank anyday [:D]

[PzB74]

Hehe I don't think anything about US entry into the war was optimal for Germany [:D]
The European map might have looked quite different after the war if the US had joined only 6 months later.
With no invasion of Italy in 43 or France in 44, it would all have been settled on the Eastern front. So its most likely that such a turn of events would have influenced the outcome of the war in Europe more than in the Pacific.

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Do you really think Roosevel would have been able to declare war on Germany within 6 months of Pearl Harbour?

I do. The point would have been pressed simply because of US efforts to supply Britain. The US came within a deuce of declaring war on Germany in October 1941 because of the Reuben James incident.

Frankly, I think Hitler's declaration of war was as optimally timed for Germany as it could get. The US was in a state of confusion over the effects of the initial Japanese attack, and in the process of revamping strategy and commands helter-skelter. The US coastal defenses were vulnerable, contributing in part to the incredible success of Operation Drumbeat. Had Hitler not declared war then, it is possible that by mid 1942 the Uboats would have faced a much better-prepared coastal defense and USN convoy system, greatly reducing the effects of the German submarine campaign in 1942 and in the first half of 1943.