A Japanese invasion of Hawaii

Gamers can also use this forum to chat about any game related subject, news, rumours etc.

Moderator: maddog986

User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 15325
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Re: A Japanese invasion of Hawaii

Post by Curtis Lemay »

Aurelian wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 10:52 pm If Pacific War is so accurate, then why did I waste my money on WiTP and AE?
I have WitP. The manual is cloudier than the one for Pacific War. I think Grigsby wised up by then and won't give out the formulas any more. But, if you read between the lines, those formulas appear to be the same for targeting values. He just says that carriers are much more valuable than battleships and the rest. But no ratings.
Funny thing about Pacific War. I bombarded Japan with the surviving battleships from Pearl Harbor. And got away with it. Very realistic, except it wasn't.
Then your opponent must have made a dumb move with his air defenses. It allows for stupidity.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

Re: A Japanese invasion of Hawaii

Post by warspite1 »

Curtis Lemay wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 4:05 pm
warspite1 wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:54 pm
Curtis Lemay wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 3:59 pm
Every item above is from Grigsby. I think we make a great team!
warspite1

If only Yamamoto had had a copy of Pacific War he would surely have seen the error of his ways.

Seriously Curtis Lemay those two posts at the top of the page are off the chart out there, even for you. I think Buckrock was right - this is a wind up right?
I stand by every word. And Grigsby is right about carriers and battleships. At the time of Pearl, carriers had a big speed advantage on BBs and 10x the bombardment range. Plus 10x the spotting range. The BB can't spot or shoot at the carrier, or even run away. Plenty of BBs sunk by carriers in the war (including the two biggest). No BB ever sank a carrier.

That's really what it's all about. It all depends upon the value of the targets. If carriers really are 10x as valuable as battleships, the plan is a no-brainer. It's a risk-reward option. The risk is low and the reward is very high.
warspite1

What?? So you need a Grigsby game to know the relative value of carriers to battleships in WWII? Well then based on the need for 150 points per go (because you think Yamamoto really understands the carrier vs battleship debate in 1941), Yamamoto won't be attacking Pearl (and Japan won't be going to war) until Saratoga joins Lex and Enterprise in Pearl Harbor....???? So that's the Pacific War starting sometime many months into 1942..... perhaps..... and all the while the Japanese oil stocks are reducing....

In the Spain/Turkey thread you showed just how much you failed to understand WWII and what happened - had never heard of the 2nd BEF, you didn't know (with two guesses) when the Battle of Britain started, you repeatedly got so many facts wrong. You evidence this once again here. "No BB ever sank a CV"? Really? Please Curtis Lemay start reading some history books rather than game rules manuals. You never heard of Scharnhorst/Gneisenau vs HMS Glorious???? This is not surprising as you believed there was no example of a country in Europe not surrendering once its capital was captured. Why did you think that? Because rule 27(b) of a wargame said Spain would surrender if Madrid was occupied and you assumed the game makers were a better source of what would happen than looking at history.

A game maker chooses points to award for each ship class. You write (and base your understanding of how WWII admirals would act) as though those point awards are somehow objective and factual reflections and not just some game mechanic. Newsflash: Yamamoto didn't have a copy of Pacific War and his understanding of carriers vs battleships was not as 'modern' as some would have us believe.
Last edited by warspite1 on Sat Nov 19, 2022 5:20 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
Sardaukar
Posts: 12843
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Finland/Israel

Re: A Japanese invasion of Hawaii

Post by Sardaukar »

Curtis Lemay wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 4:06 pm
A reminder: The Luzon invasion is postponed. Lots of fuel released for other purposes.
That is an amusing statement. So you think fuel released from that would be enough for similar endeavour at least five times the distance? And remember, they'd also need to be able to return...unless you plan for one-way trip...

Logistics does not seem to be your strongest point, though points for imagination.

By the way, even those 10 extra destroyers added to Hawaii attack force would consume 5000 tons extra fuel during those 2 weeks to get there. One DD consumes 1.5-2 tons of fuel per hour on cruise speed. On flank speed, that is multiplied by 10.

Even with Luzon operation postponed, your plan would add massive oil/fuel consumption that Japan would be hard-pressed to sustain. IJN GHQ did already make the calculations that invasion of Hawaii was unsustainable. First because there was not enough oil/fuel to go around for such operation over such distance and secondly because Japanese merchant marine would be unable to sustain forces there.
"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

Image
User avatar
TulliusDetritus
Posts: 5581
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:49 am
Location: The Zone™

Re: A Japanese invasion of Hawaii

Post by TulliusDetritus »

Orm wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 2:50 pm Although, towards the end of his presidency I think he was to tired to bear the weight of his office as good as he had previously been doing.
His illness was serious and I guess those very long trips did not help. Uncle Joe reminds me of one of my friends when I was a teen. I was the one taking the bus or subway. He always waited near his home 🤣
"Hitler is a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool" - Mussolini, circa 1934
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

Re: A Japanese invasion of Hawaii

Post by warspite1 »

Sardaukar wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 4:54 pm
Curtis Lemay wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 4:06 pm
A reminder: The Luzon invasion is postponed. Lots of fuel released for other purposes.
That is an amusing statement.
warspite1

Yes amusing, but also annoying because this post comes pages into this discussion after he's already been told about this. In giving up the Luzon operation the oil saved is miniscule compared to the additional oil spent on the expanded HI operation. In addition, the postponement of the Luzon operation delays - perhaps to a significant extent - the conquest of the NEI and thus leads to a disastrous double-whammy whereby the Japanese oil expenditure increases compares to the historic, while the income decreases.

And so far we've only really talked about ships. Look at the percentage of Japanese aircraft fuel usage that was obtained from Palembang alone. The NEI operation - for which the PI was a key staging and supply point (as Aurelian outlined previously) - can't be delayed. The Japanese can't afford to allow the British and Dutch anytime to better prepare for the attack and/or allow the Dutch more time to properly destroy the oil facilities than they did.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Aurelian
Posts: 4090
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:08 pm

Re: A Japanese invasion of Hawaii

Post by Aurelian »

No BBs ever sank a carrier.......

So Scharnhorst and Gneisenau never sank HMS Glorious?
Building a new PC.
User avatar
Platoonist
Posts: 3042
Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 4:53 am
Location: Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems

Re: A Japanese invasion of Hawaii

Post by Platoonist »

warspite1 wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 4:36 pm
What?? So you need a Grigsby game to know the relative value of carriers to battleships in WWII?
It's interesting to note for all the credibility that is being bestowed on Gary Grigsby's name being on a MS-DOS title from 1992, that Gary himself doesn't take any acknowledgement for anything beyond design, programming and rules in the game's credit notes. Historical research done by others. That's not to disparage the research that was done. Just that it's likely the lion's share of it wasn't done by G. Grigsby.

PacWar Credits.jpg
PacWar Credits.jpg (155.03 KiB) Viewed 1539 times
Buckrock
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:10 am
Location: Not all there

Re: A Japanese invasion of Hawaii

Post by Buckrock »

Curtis Lemay wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 4:13 pm This is not "pre-war". Japan is at war with China.
Irrelevant in this case. The entire Japanese navy (and most of her merchant marine) is being mobilized for war. Nothing close to that has happened during the years of Japan's conflict in China.
The military rules.
The Government rules. The military only make up part of the government.
And the port capacity of Japan alone (nevermind its overseas holdings) is huge relative to its shipyard capacity. Don't claim that every port in Japan was permanently full up for months prior to the war.
I don't. What I stated was that with the demand for so much warship and merchant preparation work for the upcoming war being compressed into such a short time and with the rest of the civilian and foreign shipping having to squeeze into what's left, dock space would be at a premium during this period and not something a warship could expect to just waltz in and grab without prior scheduling.
Curtis Lemay wrote:"What "specialist labor"? Welders and carpenters. They're just adding berths and storage.
Is this an APD or just a DD with a field mod?
It's adding berths and storage.
Where below decks are you doing this? What sections are you planning to take over in what was an already somewhat cramped ship?
Curtis Lemay wrote: And ships are huge. They can't hide while being worked on. It doesn't matter where it's done.
You seem unaware of the efforts the Japanese went through to avoid close ups of their warships and weaponry pre-war even in the public harbors of Japan.
They're still huge and can't be hidden. You don't need a close up to know what's being worked on.
You should be more optimistic. By carefully selecting which ports to operate their ships from, the Japanese seemed to have achieved what you say couldn't be done.
This was the only sig line I could think of.
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

Re: A Japanese invasion of Hawaii

Post by warspite1 »

Platoonist wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 5:22 pm
warspite1 wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 4:36 pm
What?? So you need a Grigsby game to know the relative value of carriers to battleships in WWII?
It's interesting to note for all the credibility that is being bestowed on Gary Grigsby's name being on a MS-DOS title from 1992, that Gary himself doesn't take any acknowledgement for anything beyond design, programming and rules in the game's credit notes. Historical research done by others. That's not to disparage the research that was done. Just that it's likely the lion's share of it wasn't done by G. Grigsby.


PacWar Credits.jpg
warspite1

What is bonkers is that these factors are being quoted as though they mean anything. It's 2022, those of us interested in WWII have had many - a great many in some cases! - years to study the subject. Who, genuinely, still needs a subjective point score from a wargame to understand the relative value of a battleship vs carrier in WWII? We know how naval warfare developed during the war. What we also have is some idea of what various key figures understood about the relative merits at the time. And it is that that's important to these discussions.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
TulliusDetritus
Posts: 5581
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:49 am
Location: The Zone™

Re: A Japanese invasion of Hawaii

Post by TulliusDetritus »

http://www.combinedfleet.com/pearlops.htm

"Taken as a whole, it can be seen that a Hawaiian invasion was hardly likely, regardless of the stage of the war. While an attack at the outset of hostilities might have succeeded in capturing the islands, it was strategically unsound, suffered from by horrendous military and logistical difficulties, and was risky to the point of lunacy."

So it might have worked after all 🤣
"Hitler is a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool" - Mussolini, circa 1934
User avatar
Torplexed
Posts: 365
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2002 10:37 am
Location: The Pacific

Re: A Japanese invasion of Hawaii

Post by Torplexed »

Sardaukar wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 1:39 pm If Japan had just taken Malaya, Burma and DEI, and then sat down to try to negotiate, I wonder what US response would have been.
The U.S. doesn't have to respond. In the pipeline from the Two Oceans Navy Act, they are getting 25 full sized aircraft carriers, 17 fast battleships, 6 battlecruisers, 25 new cruisers, 115 new destroyers, and 15,000 new aircraft. However poor Japan’s chances of bringing the United States to the negotiating table through decisive battle, they were better in 1941-42 than in any coming year. The Japanese couldn't possibly hope that the United States wouldn't use any interval of peace to build up a force in the Philippines capable of completely interdicting materials coming from the Southern Resource Area. The historian H. P. Willmott once made the observation that the Two Oceans Navy Act doomed the Imperial Navy to second-class status, since the activities of American shipyards would be as catastrophic for Japanese aspirations as any disastrous naval battle would be.

The Japanese from their perspective couldn't put the entire future of their Empire on the hope that the American President (whose limitations on power were not, in the least, understood by the decision makers) wouldn't just wake up one morning in a bad mood and simply roll across the Pacific, under an umbrella of land based air power on Wake, Guam, and the Philippines, rampaging across the Pacific, and crushing the Co-Prosperity Sphere out of sheer anger at economic competition.


The Japanese did the only "logical" thing they could do once they decided their only solution was to go to war with the UK/Commonwealth/Dutch. They looked at the U.S., saw the threats it presented to their long-term plans, and then honored the threat.
User avatar
Sardaukar
Posts: 12843
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Finland/Israel

Re: A Japanese invasion of Hawaii

Post by Sardaukar »

TulliusDetritus wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 5:51 pm http://www.combinedfleet.com/pearlops.htm

"Taken as a whole, it can be seen that a Hawaiian invasion was hardly likely, regardless of the stage of the war. While an attack at the outset of hostilities might have succeeded in capturing the islands, it was strategically unsound, suffered from by horrendous military and logistical difficulties, and was risky to the point of lunacy."

So it might have worked after all 🤣
Someone usually also wins in lottery too, but probabilities are against that. Even worse odds are actually being able to keep even parts of HI. They just didn't have the shipping to sustain and supply units there.
"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

Image
User avatar
TulliusDetritus
Posts: 5581
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:49 am
Location: The Zone™

Re: A Japanese invasion of Hawaii

Post by TulliusDetritus »

Sardaukar wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 6:20 pm They just didn't have the shipping to sustain and supply units there.
Said 1 million times. I'd like a proof. Really, bring me an economic historian... and I mean it ;)

If your source is the IJN planner you mentioned, my question is who is out of his depth? The said planner or the shattered sword guys? ;)

And that's the problem with these topics. Real historians don't waste their time with this. Those who do it, do they have -in this case- an economic background? Do they know the Japanese industrial, agriculture, international trade (or plunder) outputs? Where are the raw, semi-finished, finished products imported, produced, distributed and consumed? How many trucks, trains, ships are needed to run the whole machine? It's not easy, but it's 100% clear we need a *specialist* to more or less answer these questions. This is why I mentioned an "Adam Tooze"...

Throwing the mantra "logistics eh" is not enough. To me that is ;)

But of course we won't be fighting over this triviality.
"Hitler is a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool" - Mussolini, circa 1934
User avatar
Sardaukar
Posts: 12843
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Finland/Israel

Re: A Japanese invasion of Hawaii

Post by Sardaukar »

TulliusDetritus wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 6:39 pm
Sardaukar wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 6:20 pm They just didn't have the shipping to sustain and supply units there.
Said 1 million times. I'd like a proof. Really, bring me an economic historian... and I mean it ;)

If your source is the IJN planner you mentioned, my question is who is out of his depth? The said planner or the shattered sword guys? ;)

And that's the problem with these topics. Real historians don't waste their time with this. Those who do it, do they have -in this case- an economic background? Do they know the Japanese industrial, agriculture, international trade (or plunder) outputs? Where are the raw, semi-finished, finished products imported, produced, distributed and consumed? How many trucks, trains, ships are needed to run the whole machine? It's not easy, but it's 100% clear we need a *specialist* to more or less answer these questions. This is why I mentioned an "Adam Tooze"...

Throwing the mantra "logistics eh" is not enough. To me that is ;)

But of course we won't be fighting over this triviality.
Unfortunately Economic Historian is not Military Logistician.

Those are totally different areas and feasibility of logistics of Hawaii operation needs latter.

IJN GHQ itself studied operation both briefly in pre-war September 1941 wargame and early 1942, both times deeming it unfeasible.

But for starters, numbers on combinedfleet.com are real:

Not only that, but the civilian economy actually needed 10 million tons of shipping to supply it, the remainder having been made up before the war by cargo carried in foreign (mostly Allied) cargo ships. So in actuality, the Japan started the war 3.5 million tons in the hole. The Japanese economy was being expected to fight a major, multi-theatre war, while subsisting on 25% of its prewar shipping requirements! Taken as a whole, it is difficult to imagine how Japan could have freed up any additional shipping to increase the potential size of the amphibious pool.

Supposing that the Japanese had attacked on the day of Pearl Harbor, and that 3 divisions of Japanese troops had teleported onto Oahu, it is feasible that an (obviously very surprised) American force would not have been able to resist. However in doing so, Japan would forfeit her objectives in the Dutch East Indies-there were only 11 divisions to spare (as the rest were needed in China) and every single one of those divisions was absolutely needed where it was deployed. Not to mention the shipping to supply Japan with precious resources.

John Stephan, "Hawaii Under the Rising Sun" is pretty good book about hypothetical operation.

http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Pacifi ... asion.html

Japan did not invade Hawaii at the same time it attacked Pearl Harbor because it was counter to its goals at the time. The sole purpose of the attack was to keep the US Navy Fleet from threatening Japan's conquest of the Philippine islands, Dutch East Indies, and other resource-rich lands south of the Japanese homeland. Any conquest and holding of the Hawaiian islands would have drained strength from this primary goal; indeed Admiral Yamamoto had to fight to get all six carriers of the Kido Butai kept on the mission as some felt they would be better used supporting the invasion forces.
......

Navy Captain Kami Shigenori was asked to do a study for the Imperial Japanese Army at the end of December, 1941 on the logistical support necessary to support an occupation force on Hawaii. His report, completed by January 11 of 1942, indicated that it would take at least sixty transport loads a month (essentially two ships a day) to sustain the force and islands . While this was done after the initial attack, it does show the logistical drain this would have been on Japan's Army and Navy when they were trying to secure lands in the Philippines and Dutch East Indies.

To put this in a mathmatical perspective, if we were to plot a course on a straight line from Yokohama to Oahu, deviating only for land obstructions, we get a distance of nearly 4,000 miles. If we assign a generous cruising speed of 15 miles per hour, our ship will take just over 11 days to reach Hawaii from Yokohama. If we need two a day, we need 22 ships heading to Hawaii at any one time to sustain the force. But wait, once they get there, they need to come back, so in actuality we'll have 44 ships sailing to and from Hawaii at any point.

However, it also takes time to load and unload ships; let's give them four days at each port; that means we need an additional sixteen ships added to cover the down time (Two ships in each port for four days equals 16). So we really need sixty ships dedicated to the Hawaiian occupation just to sustain the forces. These are just transports; we're not factoring in the escort ships that would be needed to screen for American submarines, and overhead built into the system to compensate for any ships sank by American forces.


But, the best reason why that sort of operation didn't happen is said here:

https://grantpiperwriting.medium.com/wh ... e11c5d72a9

The attacks on Pearl Harbor were carried out by the navy which did not have the ground forces to push for an invasion. In order to get the ground forces, they would have to ask the army — politely.

The army said no.

The army said no to Imperial Japanese Navy requests for troops a lot. They refused to pony up the resources needed to push valuable targets like Hawaii, Ceylon, or Australia.

That is because the army was bogged down in a long war in China that they had no intentions of giving up.


......

Conclusion
While logistics certainly played a role in why Japan did not strike at valuable targets that were in reach during 1942 the logistical problems were made insurmountable by the disfunction that existed between the Japanese army and the Japanese navy. The navy was responsible for much of the air power and sea power in the Pacific but it had to request additional ground forces from the army to conduct its operations. If the army said no, the navy would be left with no troops to conduct any invasions.

The absolutely wild state of the Japanese military during this period is hard to comprehend for today’s readers and it really impacted the war effort on many levels.



And if other people have difficulties to understand military logistics, I don't. Those had to be studied if you were member of professional military in any planning capacity.
"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

Image
User avatar
TulliusDetritus
Posts: 5581
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:49 am
Location: The Zone™

Re: A Japanese invasion of Hawaii

Post by TulliusDetritus »

Sardaukar wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 7:14 pm And if other people have difficulties to understand military logistics, I don't. Those had to be studied if you were member of professional military in any planning capacity.
Your IJN planner affirms the invasion is impossible, yet the shattered sword guys say it's possible, what has "if other people have difficulties to understand military logistics" to do with this? And it's the very base or whole economic life that needs to be understood here. Only when this is grasped the militaries will be able to play with their toys: "this is what we really have or can afford". Where's the economic historian? He's the one that will answer these questions.

edited Grant Piper, a freelance writer, researcher, and content creator is certainly not what I am looking for ;)
Last edited by TulliusDetritus on Sat Nov 19, 2022 7:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Hitler is a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool" - Mussolini, circa 1934
User avatar
Platoonist
Posts: 3042
Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 4:53 am
Location: Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems

Re: A Japanese invasion of Hawaii

Post by Platoonist »

Sardaukar wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 7:14 pm
While logistics certainly played a role in why Japan did not strike at valuable targets that were in reach during 1942 the logistical problems were made insurmountable by the disfunction that existed between the Japanese army and the Japanese navy. The navy was responsible for much of the air power and sea power in the Pacific but it had to request additional ground forces from the army to conduct its operations. If the army said no, the navy would be left with no troops to conduct any invasions.

The absolutely wild state of the Japanese military during this period is hard to comprehend for today’s readers and it really impacted the war effort on many levels.[/i]


And if other people have difficulties to understand military logistics, I don't. Those had to be studied if you were member of professional military in any planning capacity.
An excellent book on the subject of Japan's dysfunctional shipping situation is Mark Parillo's The Japanese Merchant Marine in World War Two. Goes into some gory detail not only on how top-heavy the Japanese navy was in the ratio of warships to lowly cargo and logistical vessels, but at how shockingly mismanaged those merchant assets were. If the USN had only had a reliable submarine torpedo from the beginning, I doubt the A-bomb or an invasion would have ever been necessary. Of course, lingering mass starvation in Japan wouldn't have been much prettier.
Last edited by Platoonist on Sat Nov 19, 2022 8:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 19521
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

Re: A Japanese invasion of Hawaii

Post by RangerJoe »

My understanding was that merchant ships were assigned to the army and navy separately, not combined nor coordinated with civilian needs. So frequently fully laden ships would pass empty ships, then return empty while other ships would load cargoes to go to the originating port of the loaded ships, then return empty.
Attachments
newborn corvette.jpg
newborn corvette.jpg (31.34 KiB) Viewed 1448 times
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing! :o

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
:twisted: ; Julia Child


Image
User avatar
Platoonist
Posts: 3042
Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 4:53 am
Location: Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems

Re: A Japanese invasion of Hawaii

Post by Platoonist »

RangerJoe wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 8:02 pm My understanding was that merchant ships were assigned to the army and navy separately, not combined nor coordinated with civilian needs. So frequently fully laden ships would pass empty ships, then return empty while other ships would load cargoes to go to the originating port of the loaded ships, then return empty.
One incident where this crippling division of effort really reared its ugly head was in the devastating US carrier raid on Truk in February 1944. IJN intelligence saw the raid coming and moved most of its warships well out of harm's way. However, it couldn't be arsed to inform the Imperial Japanese Army, resulting in a staggering number of Army freighters fully laden with cargo getting sunk in port. The way the Navy saw it was; That was the Army's look-out, not the Navy's.

An eminent Japanese scientist with firsthand experience of the bitter inter-service rivalry once remarked that; "A general and and admiral would rather lose the war than shake hands".
Last edited by Platoonist on Sat Nov 19, 2022 9:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 19521
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

Re: A Japanese invasion of Hawaii

Post by RangerJoe »

Platoonist wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 7:48 pm
Sardaukar wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 7:14 pm
While logistics certainly played a role in why Japan did not strike at valuable targets that were in reach during 1942 the logistical problems were made insurmountable by the disfunction that existed between the Japanese army and the Japanese navy. The navy was responsible for much of the air power and sea power in the Pacific but it had to request additional ground forces from the army to conduct its operations. If the army said no, the navy would be left with no troops to conduct any invasions.

The absolutely wild state of the Japanese military during this period is hard to comprehend for today’s readers and it really impacted the war effort on many levels.[/i]


And if other people have difficulties to understand military logistics, I don't. Those had to be studied if you were member of professional military in any planning capacity.
An excellent book on the subject of Japan's dysfunctional shipping situation is Mark Parillo's The Japanese Merchant Marine in World War Two. Goes into some gory detail not only on how top-heavy the Japanese navy was in the ratio of warships to lowly cargo and logistical vessels, but at how shockingly mismanaged those merchant assets were. If the USN had only had a reliable submarine torpedo from the beginning, I doubt the A-bomb or an invasion would have ever been necessary. Of course, lingering mass starvation in Japan wouldn't have been much prettier.
On another thread from a different forum entirely:

". . . Optimistic pre-war planning estimated that the Japanese economy would require some three million tons of shipping, with 2.3 million tons for the army, and 1.8 million tons for the navy, for a total of 7.1 million tons. For a nation with access to only 6.4 million tons of shipping when the war began in 1941 this means that Japan was overbudget on her logistics requirements from the start, even before losses to enemy action and unexpected expenditures were factored in. It was hoped that after the first six months of the war military requirements would fall to 1.1 million tons of shipping for the army, which would get Japan back within her means, but as the war panned out this reduction in requirements never actually happened, so this was ultimately just pre-war wishful thinking. [Mark Parillo, "The Japanese Merchant Marine in WWII," pp.37-38]

Ultimately the Japanese military cut into civilian shipping rather than limit the scope of their own operations, so in 1942 shipping for the civilian economy was reduced down to 2.5 million tons of the worst quality merchant vessels - some studies rated those ships as actually equivalent to just 1.6 million tons - well below the 3 million tons that pre-war planners had said was the minimum required to sustain the economy of the Home Islands. [Parillo, p.76-79] That the Japanese economy performed so poorly in the war and was chronically unable to meet its demands should thus come as no surprise. Beyond the reality that even at full production they were badly outmatched by the industries of America, the industries of the Home Islands were starved besides.

This fact that the coming war was one Japan could not effectively wage was obvious to Japan's few professional logisticians. . . but none of the decision makers listened to them. The Japanese officer culture inculcated an attitude where cold hard facts were subordinate to the spirit with which one carried out one's duties:

The Japanese Army continued to stress spiritual qualities rather than the element of rationality as the decisive factor in victory. The product was an officer who frequently manifested an irrational spiritualism along with his limited intellectual vision. Education in the navy revolved around the same principles and achieved virtually the same results. Commander Oi Atsushi [of the Navy Ministry's Research Section] said once that a General Staff operations officer complained that Oi's remarks on economics were "contaminating his ears."
[Parillo, p.26]"

https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads ... 508/page-2
Attachments
spacing is everything.jpg
spacing is everything.jpg (40.09 KiB) Viewed 1413 times
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing! :o

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
:twisted: ; Julia Child


Image
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 19521
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

Re: A Japanese invasion of Hawaii

Post by RangerJoe »

Platoonist wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 8:25 pm
RangerJoe wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 8:02 pm My understanding was that merchant ships were assigned to the army and navy separately, not combined nor coordinated with civilian needs. So frequently fully laden ships would pass empty ships, then return empty while other ships would load cargoes to go to the originating port of the loaded ships, then return empty.
One incident where this crippling division of effort really reared its ugly head was in the devastating US carrier raid on Truk in February 1944. IJN intelligence saw the raid coming and moved most of its warships well out of harm's way. However, it couldn't be arsed to inform the Imperial Japanese Army, resulting in a staggering number of Army freighters fully laden with cargo getting sunk in port. The way the Navy saw it was; That was the Army's look-out, not the Navy's.

An eminent Japanese scientist with firsthand experience of the bitter inter-service rivalry once remarked that; "A general and and admiral would rather lose the war than shake hands".
". . . That's just the failure of the Japanese leadership to match strategic plans to available resources, without going into how they further mismanaged those resources. At an operational and tactical level the Japanese merchant fleet was also grossly mismanaged.

There's a basic rule of transport efficiency where you send ships out full, and bring them back full. So a ship leaving the industrial centre would carry finished goods out to the resource areas, from which it would then return laden with raw resources. Because the Japanese tried to push a security perimeter out past the resource areas this basic efficiency was lost to them. Ships heading to the Southern Resource Area left Japan empty, and returned from Indonesia and Indochina full of raw resources, while ships heading to the frontline island fortresses left Japan full of weapons and ammunition, and returned from the Marianas, Marshals and Solomon islands empty. Had Japan drawn up her defensive perimeter at the resource areas she would have more than doubled the efficiency of her transport fleet; something she badly needed to do.

Even the military value of pushing a security perimeter out beyond the resource areas was questionable because once the Americans attacked Japan proved completely unable to sustain her forces at those far flung points. During the battle for Guadalcanal Japanese troops received 10% the tonnage in supplies that their American opponents did, and that was the best Japan would ever have it. From that point on growing American strength and mounting Japanese losses would make the logistical situation ever more lopsided.

Those losses are of particular note, because the Japanese completely failed to protect their vital merchant fleet from the enemy. Before the war the IJN put very little intellectual and material resources into the problem of protecting its maritime commerce. The best destroyers were instead designed for fleet service, and the various escort commands were reduced to begging for whatever leavings they could acquire that Combined Fleet was willing to part with. The ships the escort forces did receive were poorly equipped, and their crews poorly trained for the complex task of ASW and convoy duties. Before the war the merchant fleet also had paid little attention to convoy training, so when the practice was belatedly adopted in 1943 the Japanese convoys were badly handled, with ships failing to maintain station, colliding, getting lost, or panicking and scattering once under attack.

The Japanese gained a brief respite early in the war due to the failings of American submarines, but once these were fixed Japan's merchant fleet was slaughtered across the length and breadth of the Pacific. Protecting Japan's many sea routes would have posed a complex problem even for the most skilled and numerous escort forces, but for the naval dregs who Japan actually tasked with escort duty the problem was insoluble, and Japanese shipping paid the steepest of prices.

Basically, Japan chose to fight a war with a plan that required more shipping than she had, and then used that shipping highly inefficiently while failing to provide it the most basic protections. Japan's defeat was inevitable even had she done everything right, but - as far as logistics are concerned - Japan made a slew of egregious and unforced errors (of which I've only mentioned the most glaring - there were many others such as inefficiencies in cargo on and offloading, and the failure of ground transport to and from the ports) that further weakened her forces and hastened her collapse."

https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads ... 508/page-2
Attachments
ths work center has been accident free since joe left.jpg
ths work center has been accident free since joe left.jpg (105.87 KiB) Viewed 1409 times
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing! :o

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
:twisted: ; Julia Child


Image
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”