OT question about Japan invading Hawaii

[t001001001]

I'm sure they ran the tonnage numbers to reckon what they could do. It's a short argument. The logistics are impossible.


"WE NEED YOU TO RUN THE NUMBERS. IS INVADING OAHU FEASIBLE?

No it isn't and I hope you're joking."

[danlongman]

If they ran the numbers they would not have even started the war.
Since when did they consider stuff like logistics? The Japanese
were always sending their guys to do impossible jobs with nothing.
When our guys started not dropping the ball before the kick off the
Japanese were screwed.

[t001001001]

I didn't mean to discount the argument. I think it's interesting.


I deal w/ asian imported goods a bit. I was telling my buddy the other day how perplexed I often am regarding decisions they make. I scratch my pointy head thinking "why did they do it like this?" It's not a slam at their culture, I'm saying their thinking is often alien to me. It doesn't mean they're right or I'm wrong - it's a typical clash of culture.

The Japanese knew they couldn't win. All their captains of logistics and manufacture knew they were outclassed and doomed. They attacked anyway. They really thought they were going to be the US's pimp. That was never going to happen, aye carumba what a misjudgement! The US was never going to surrender to im - even their own culture didn't allow for capitulation. What were those guys thinking!? We'll never know.

I doubt they seriously considered invading Hawaii, even if they could have, if they went balls out (it's debatable), I fail to see what they'd have to gain. Unless they thought it'd make the US surrender (it would have pissed the hornet nest off even more than it already was) ?

Everything to lose for little to gain. It's interesting to think about their capability to do it, w/o a danged good motive to do such a thing - it's sort of moot.

[CaptBeefheart]

ORIGINAL: t001001001

I deal w/ asian imported goods a bit. I was telling my buddy the other day how perplexed I often am regarding decisions they make. I scratch my pointy head thinking "why did they do it like this?" It's not a slam at their culture, I'm saying their thinking is often alien to me. It doesn't mean they're right or I'm wrong - it's a typical clash of culture.

Welcome to my world. [;)] One thing that strikes me is the difference in personal initiative and creative thinking between out here and back in the U.S. In situations where absolute discipline and following orders is required, and knowledge needed to do the job can be memorized, you won't find better performers than Japanese and Koreans (broadly speaking--the two cultures are a bit different). I think that advantage disappears when personal initiative is required. Other situations, such as learning from mistakes, also hinder performance, since nobody wants to admit mistakes in the first place. One guy might learn from his personal mistakes, but that doesn't necessarily translate to institutional knowledge. The "Japanese Destroyer Captain" book makes it pretty clear that the author had trouble getting people to listen to him most of the time (not to say Allies were perfect in this respect).

That said, the Japanese did some amazing things for quite a long run. But, at the end of the day not just sheer industrial might, but also Allied doctrinal adjustments, did them in.

To relate back to the original post, the U.S. Army at Bataan held out quite well considering the amount of supplies they had. I think if you look at a far better supply situation in Hawaii, which would have been easier to resupply, it would have been hard to say the Japanese could have taken the place.

Cheers,
CC

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: t001001001


The Japanese knew they couldn't win. All their captains of logistics and manufacture knew they were outclassed and doomed. They attacked anyway. They really thought they were going to be the US's pimp. That was never going to happen, aye carumba what a misjudgement! The US was never going to surrender to im - even their own culture didn't allow for capitulation. What were those guys thinking!? We'll never know.

I doubt they seriously considered invading Hawaii, even if they could have, if they went balls out (it's debatable), I fail to see what they'd have to gain. Unless they thought it'd make the US surrender (it would have pissed the hornet nest off even more than it already was) ?

Everything to lose for little to gain. It's interesting to think about their capability to do it, w/o a danged good motive to do such a thing - it's sort of moot.

The Japanese believed thay could gain a "victory of limited objectives" because they'd done it before. First against China in the 1890's, then against Russia in 1904-05. They couldn't grasp that the same tactics that worked against two tottering Empires (strike without warning, grab what you wanted, and wait for the other side to give in or collapse) would be suicidal against an Industrial Democracy. Even their "sop" to a warning wasn't a declaration of war, but a suspension of negotiations to be hopefully delivered 30 minutess prior to PH. If they believed that a politician of FDR's abilities couldn't turn that into a "stab in the back", then they weere really delusional.

They also fully believed that the suicidal bravery of their troops would wear the US down after they had completely "pissed us off". Instead it inspired us to build more than enough bullets, shells, and bombs to insure the deaths of every Japanese who wanted to die..., several dozen times over. And the greatest Naval and Air Force ever seen to deliver them.

[catwhoorg]

As part of my job I routinely run training sessions for our sales group and our distributors.

With Western folks (and even Indians/Pakistani's) these are always dynamic with lots of questions and great fun.

With Japanese, Korean and other East Asians, they are really rough going. The culture is so deferential to 'experts' its frustrating. I want to be questioned, I want interaction. I hate speaking out to a room and no feedback.

Culturally, yes its very very different.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I suppose the US would have expedited work on the 4EB to put them into play sooner and in much bigger numbers.  Also, in the Pacific the US had a shortage of good amphibious landing ships early since so many were used in the PTO for Operation Torch.  And the extra combat ships would have made the Americans more likely to act earlier.  The main thing, though is that the US would have been free to focus very narrowly on the biggest needs - B-29, long-range fighters, amphibious assault ships, and carriers.

warspite1

But the point of my question was what difference would it have made in 1942 and early 43?

Interesting discussion guys.

To warspite1's point: In a "Japan first" scenario, American commitment to the North African offensive would likely have been stemmed. Thus, Americans could deploy (in 1942), the 1st and 2nd armored divisions; 1st, 3rd and 9th infantry divisions, 509 PIR and a brigade from the 34th infantry divisions. Circa 60,000 troops, plus the hundreds of ships to move 'em and the naval support to protect them on the way in.

At least CV Ranger, BBs Texas and Massachusetts and four escort carriers would be added to the naval OOB as well. There were other naval combatants that I'm too lazy to post here.

So, Guadalcanal x2? Early conquest of the Marshalls? Saipan in 1943? All feasible.

Japan capturing all of the Hawaiian islands and hanging on to them? Not so much.

[witpqs]

IIRC from what I've read, Ranger would not have been sent to the Pacific. They judged her to be not stable enough in rough seas. In fact they were even worried about Wasp. Pretty sure that I read that in Nimitz's bio, Nimitz by Potter and I believe I saw it elsewhere as well.

[Chickenboy]

If Japan had invaded the Hawaiian islands and we had adopted a "Japan First" strategy, witpqs, I respectfully submit that she (Ranger), et. al., would have found a way to get there or be involved.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

If Japan had invaded the Hawaiian islands and we had adopted a "Japan First" strategy, witpqs, I respectfully submit that she (Ranger), et. al., would have found a way to get there or be involved.

I'm not so sure. Even with borrowing an RN carrier, Ranger was not sent to the Pacific. It depends on the degree of desperation.

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
The Japanese believed thay could gain a "victory of limited objectives" because they'd done it before. First against China in the 1890's, then against Russia in 1904-05. They couldn't grasp that the same tactics that worked against two tottering Empires (strike without warning, grab what you wanted, and wait for the other side to give in or collapse) would be suicidal against an Industrial Democracy. Even their "sop" to a warning wasn't a declaration of war, but a suspension of negotiations to be hopefully delivered 30 minutess prior to PH. If they believed that a politician of FDR's abilities couldn't turn that into a "stab in the back", then they weere really delusional.

They didn't realize that not only was Russia a failing empire, but it was also a continental power. The Russian navy was a secondary service. They had a fair number of ships, but ship quality and crew quality were relatively poor. Add to that Russia's industrial power at the turn of the century was very weak and control over their far east was somewhat tenuous.

On the other hand, the US was at its industrial peak. I read somewhere that in 1940 the US had over 50% of all the industrial output on the planet. The war in Europe had been a big boost to the US economy and it was coming back. In 1905 the Russians had few ships under construction and had few resources to lay down more to replace losses. In 1941 the US had a gigantic fleet under construction or in sea trials. It was one of the most dramatic naval build ups in US history.

Russia had to sue for peace because it essentially had no navy left. The US looked at their fleet building program and knew it was only a matter of time before they completely outstripped Japan's navy in numbers and, in many cases, quality.

I have also read that there were many in the Japanese high command who thought the US was weak because women had a lot more say in US politics than in Japan and the women would clamor fr peace if the Japanese hit the US hard enough. Yammamoto understood the American psyche much better and tried to dissuade them of those ideas, but he had little success.

They also fully believed that the suicidal bravery of their troops would wear the US down after they had completely "pissed us off". Instead it inspired us to build more than enough bullets, shells, and bombs to insure the deaths of every Japanese who wanted to die..., several dozen times over. And the greatest Naval and Air Force ever seen to deliver them.

The Code of Bushido was a corruption of the Samurai's Code. They believed that the Bushido spirit could make up for shortages in just about everything. The individual Japanese soldier did fight amazingly well considering all the handicaps put on him, but ultimately it was too little total impact over a less motivated trooper from another nation with overall better equipment, supply train, and eventually better numbers of boots on the ground.

Bill

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

I have also read that there were many in the Japanese high command who thought the US was weak because women had a lot more say in US politics than in Japan and the women would clamor fr peace if the Japanese hit the US hard enough.

Perhaps they should have noticed that twenty US states have cities or towns named Sparta and recalled what Spartan mothers told their sons as they left for war: "With your shield or on it."

[gradenko2k]

ORIGINAL: witpqs
IIRC from what I've read, Ranger would not have been sent to the Pacific. They judged her to be not stable enough in rough seas. In fact they were even worried about Wasp. Pretty sure that I read that in Nimitz's bio, Nimitz by Potter and I believe I saw it elsewhere as well.

They also didn't want to use the Ranger in the Pacific because she was quite slow. At 29.3 knots (as a theoretical maximu, often more like 24-26 knots in practice), even the Independence CVLs or the British Illustrious CVs were faster, the Yorktown's and the Essex's much more so.

The Ranger also carried quite a bit less aircraft - somewhere around 75-80 compared to a Yorktown's 90. Finally, the specific configuration of her flight deck, arresting gear and elevators made the Ranger less suited for high-intensity air operations.

In the end though, it wasn't so much these drawbacks that lead to her permanent assignment to the Atlantic: The USN did use her sister ship, the Wasp, in the Pacific after all. Rather, by the time they might have wanted to use her, the Essex class carriers were already about to start rolling off the shipyards.

It's conceivable that the Ranger might have been sent to the Pacific if the USN suffered a tragic blow to their other carriers and the IJN didn't lose at Midway so badly, but I imagine her fate would not have been that much different from the Wasp unless she's utilized so conservatively that the Essex's come in to save the day anyway.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

If Japan had invaded the Hawaiian islands and we had adopted a "Japan First" strategy, witpqs, I respectfully submit that she (Ranger), et. al., would have found a way to get there or be involved.

warspite1

CB just to be clear, I was not asking that question in response to an invasion of Hawaii - because like Sealion it wasn't ever going to happen - at least not without the Japanese / German [delete as appropriate] losing the war there and then.

The question was in response to Canoerebel saying something along the lines of "what would happen to the Japanese if the US had a Japan first strategy". My question - and I bow to greater knowledge from some of you on this forum - I don't think that in 1942 / early 43 it would have made that much difference. Maybe late 42 / early 43 the Torch units could have been used... but where?

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Maybe late 42 / early 43 the Torch units could have been used... but where?

Warspite1, old bean, please see my previous post on this matter. I propose an early Marshall invasion and possibly Marianas (Saipan) earlier than historical.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

If Japan had invaded the Hawaiian islands and we had adopted a "Japan First" strategy, witpqs, I respectfully submit that she (Ranger), et. al., would have found a way to get there or be involved.

warspite1

CB just to be clear, I was not asking that question in response to an invasion of Hawaii - because like Sealion it wasn't ever going to happen - at least not without the Japanese / German [delete as appropriate] losing the war there and then.

The question was in response to Canoerebel saying something along the lines of "what would happen to the Japanese if the US had a Japan first strategy". My question - and I bow to greater knowledge from some of you on this forum - I don't think that in 1942 / early 43 it would have made that much difference. Maybe late 42 / early 43 the Torch units could have been used... but where?

warspite1

Wouldn't the Marianas - if not the Marshalls - have been too much though? When did the Essex-class first come into service? The problem as I see it is not troop nos or aircraft, its aircraft carriers.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
- I don't think that in 1942 / early 43 it would have made that much difference. Maybe late 42 / early 43 the Torch units could have been used... but where?

Wherever the enemy goes... you go. As simple as that [8D]

It would have made a difference, I suspect.

Let's not forget the "apathy" shown by the allies in the Pacific was -among other things- the consequence of the quick Japanese victories, advances. The initial "superiority" ("what? the Japanese pilots can sink the Prince of Wales and Repulse? Who would have thought it!") was replaced by the "pessimism". And then to apathy.

No quick, fast advances (but an assault on Hawaii: maybe a catastrophic assault)... perhaps (and only perhaps) the allies would have been much more active.

So wherever the enemy goes... you go.

Unless you want to avoid the fight at all cost [;)]

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

ORIGINAL: witpqs
IIRC from what I've read, Ranger would not have been sent to the Pacific. They judged her to be not stable enough in rough seas. In fact they were even worried about Wasp. Pretty sure that I read that in Nimitz's bio, Nimitz by Potter and I believe I saw it elsewhere as well.

They also didn't want to use the Ranger in the Pacific because she was quite slow. At 29.3 knots (as a theoretical maximu, often more like 24-26 knots in practice), even the Independence CVLs or the British Illustrious CVs were faster, the Yorktown's and the Essex's much more so.

The Ranger also carried quite a bit less aircraft - somewhere around 75-80 compared to a Yorktown's 90. Finally, the specific configuration of her flight deck, arresting gear and elevators made the Ranger less suited for high-intensity air operations.

In the end though, it wasn't so much these drawbacks that lead to her permanent assignment to the Atlantic: The USN did use her sister ship, the Wasp, in the Pacific after all. Rather, by the time they might have wanted to use her, the Essex class carriers were already about to start rolling off the shipyards.

It's conceivable that the Ranger might have been sent to the Pacific if the USN suffered a tragic blow to their other carriers and the IJN didn't lose at Midway so badly, but I imagine her fate would not have been that much different from the Wasp unless she's utilized so conservatively that the Essex's come in to save the day anyway.

I don't think that Ranger and Wasp were sister ships? [&:]

[MateDow]

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000
...The USN did use her sister ship, the Wasp, in the Pacific after all.

Wasp and Ranger were not sister ships.

Ranger was a carrier completed in 1934 using information from operations from Lexington and Saratoga to build a carrier from the keel up rather than a conversion. After joining the fleet, it was discovered that too much was sacrificed for tonnage (air capacity and speed).

Wasp was a development of the Yorktown-class to utilize the remaining tonnage left under the London Naval Limitation Treaty. Like the Ranger, it was discovered that the sacrifice of speed and aircraft for tonnage wasn't as economical as it seemed on paper.

Similar concepts, but not sister ships.

[wdolson]

Yes, the Wasp was essentially a downsized Yorktown with a deck edge elevator. The Ranger was completely unique in every way. I suppose the Ranger did influence the design of the Independence class which were about the same size. With the Ranger they learned how not to build a CVL and corrected the mistakes for the Independences.

If the waters around Hawaii had been contested and the US was required to run heavily protected convoys to Hawaii, the Ranger may have been transferred to the Pacific for convoy escort. The Ranger was pretty much adequate to serve in the role of a largish CVE.

As far as Warspite's what if question if the US had sent more troops to the Pacific first. I think MacArthur probably would have grabbed them and used them to move up the north coast of New Guinea faster. Though armor divisions were pretty much useless in the Pacific. They probably would have been demechanized.

More troops may have been sent to India too.

Until mid to late 1943, the US was short of carriers so island campaigns in the middle of the Pacific were pretty much out. Though War Plan Orange had identified the Central Pacific strategy as the most efficient towards cutting up Japan's empire. Until the war came, few realized that War Plan Orange was a no go without lots of carriers.

Bill