RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii

RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

TSCofield -> RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii (12/6/2012 11:47:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy It's pretty obvious that after June of 42 that Japan would never take Hawaii. But did they ever have a chance? Maybe in December 1941 they had a shot but even then. I do not know the speed of WW2 troop ships but I cannot imagine them keeping up with the KB. What do you guys think? Did Japan ever have a shot at it? will post here since this is the legitimate question. Personally no. I think others have posted good points but here are a couple of mine. 1. There was no assumption of success at Pearl Harbor. In some respects the attack was specatular beyond what the planners had hoped but there were still multiple CAs and CLs in service, at least the Pennsylvania could have sailed rather quickly once out of drydock. Within 24 hours the US could have managed to set sail with 2CAs, 3CLs and probably a dozen DDs. Maybe the Pennsylvania if she could be provisioned and sent out quickly. The KB would have had to stick around and take care of these ships, along with the other BBs still in port but locked behind sunken ships and rest of the air power left on the island. While the attack crippled the USAAC on the island not all of the aircraft were completely destroyed and probably 40-75 aircraft could still scramble within 24 hours. Aircraft repair facilities were still intact on the island. That means the KB would not have been in a good position for continued support of the invasion once the act of sinking all remaining fleet assets as well as remaining aircraft was done. Add to that the knowlege that the USN still had her carriers at sea and assuming they would be steaming at full speed to support the Navy. The KB would have to keep something back to deal with the US carriers when they ultimately did appear. 2. The IJN invasion fleet would probably have had to sail from Japan. The Marshalls were just not set up to handle such a large invasion force in waiting. A force that big would have had to be trained, provisioned and loaded onto ships. It would take days to weeks to load them from a large port, the Marshall Islands didn't have facilities large enough to do this. Adding to the troubles would be the need to sail 3800 miles to Hawaii. A fleet that large probably would make, at best, 12 knots when you consider the weather. That's almost two weeks at sea. If the force had to go to the south due to the weather it probably would be longer. Not ignoring the fact that the transport force would be made up of the best troop transports in the IJN you would still have to somehow keep two to three divisions of troops combat capable over that time. The Pacific in December is not a hospitable place and 30 thousand seasick troops would have a hard time doing much of anything. Troopships are not cruise liners. 3. To support a fleet that big would require pulling warships off of duty in other places. It might undermine attacks in Malaya. It is easy to assume that the Prince of Wales and Repulse would have been sunk now but there was no body of knowlege that stated such ships would be lost when attacked at full speed, at sea. The Japanese had to support their invasion force with a powerful surface fleet just in case. Likewise any attack on the Phillipines could have been interdicted by the US Asiatic fleet, although it was pretty much scattered. Many of the warships that were supporting other invasions and would have been needed to support the invasion fleet. Again, it would never have been assumed that the US Pacific fleet would have been destroyed at Pearl Harbor so the IJN would have had to plan for at least a half a dozen battleships, cruisers and destroyers attacking their transport fleet. Even a couple of cruisers and a handful of destroyers would have reaped havoc among a minimally protected invasion fleet. I don't think that anyone in the IJN or IJA seriously thought they could take or hold Hawaii. It would have required the diversion of resources desperately needed to take the DEI or New Britain later. Even the attacks on Malaya could have been disasterous if the support ships were gone 5,000 miles away. For the assault to work too many things would have had to go right repeatedly, something that rarely, if ever, happens in wartime. Via hindsite it was possible to get troops ashore, maybe but who knows.

Ketza -> RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii (12/7/2012 1:39:54 AM)
I just spent the last 3 weeks on Oahu because of work. As I drove around the island and visited various places it became more and more apparent to me that taking Oahu would have been a huge undertaking that I am not sure the Japanese could have pulled off even on Dec 7th. The Islands terrain is very rough and full of mountains. Most of the beaches other then the ones near Pearl Harbor are very rough and could be easily isolated. The majority of major land batteries were located in areas where Japanese naval bombardment would have been very ineffective as they did not have the guidance or the logistics to support sustained barrages. Isolating Oahu would have been an option rendering it useless until the USN came knocking but I cant see the Island actually falling to an invasion with what Japan had in 1941 or 1942.

Joe D. -> RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii (12/7/2012 2:01:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel How in the world could Japan have invaded and held the Hawaiian Islands if they barely managed to get a division ashore at Guadalcanal over an extended period - and never managed to get the division's heavy gear ashore? ... According to the video Guadalcanal: The Island of Death, the IJN was able to deliver men and equipment ashore at night, but getting heavy gear through the thick jungle of the 'Canal was almost impossible. Even disassembled, Imperial troops had to leave mortars and small arty behind because it delayed them from getting into position in time for offensives they never could coordinate.

mike scholl 1 -> RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii (12/7/2012 4:41:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimHq Tom Cofield quote: ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy It's pretty obvious that after June of 42 that Japan would never take Hawaii. But did they ever have a chance? Maybe in December 1941 they had a shot but even then. I do not know the speed of WW2 troop ships but I cannot imagine them keeping up with the KB. What do you guys think? Did Japan ever have a shot at it? will post here since this is the legitimate question. Personally no. I think others have posted good points but here are a couple of mine. 1. There was no assumption of success at Pearl Harbor. In some respects the attack was specatular beyond what the planners had hoped but there were still multiple CAs and CLs in service, at least the Pennsylvania could have sailed rather quickly once out of drydock. Within 24 hours the US could have managed to set sail with 2CAs, 3CLs and probably a dozen DDs. Maybe the Pennsylvania if she could be provisioned and sent out quickly. The KB would have had to stick around and take care of these ships, along with the other BBs still in port but locked behind sunken ships and rest of the air power left on the island. While the attack crippled the USAAC on the island not all of the aircraft were completely destroyed and probably 40-75 aircraft could still scramble within 24 hours. Aircraft repair facilities were still intact on the island. That means the KB would not have been in a good position for continued support of the invasion once the act of sinking all remaining fleet assets as well as remaining aircraft was done. Add to that the knowlege that the USN still had her carriers at sea and assuming they would be steaming at full speed to support the Navy. The KB would have to keep something back to deal with the US carriers when they ultimately did appear. 2. The IJN invasion fleet would probably have had to sail from Japan. The Marshalls were just not set up to handle such a large invasion force in waiting. A force that big would have had to be trained, provisioned and loaded onto ships. It would take days to weeks to load them from a large port, the Marshall Islands didn't have facilities large enough to do this. Adding to the troubles would be the need to sail 3800 miles to Hawaii. A fleet that large probably would make, at best, 12 knots when you consider the weather. That's almost two weeks at sea. If the force had to go to the south due to the weather it probably would be longer. Not ignoring the fact that the transport force would be made up of the best troop transports in the IJN you would still have to somehow keep two to three divisions of troops combat capable over that time. The Pacific in December is not a hospitable place and 30 thousand seasick troops would have a hard time doing much of anything. Troopships are not cruise liners. 3. To support a fleet that big would require pulling warships off of duty in other places. It might undermine attacks in Malaya. It is easy to assume that the Prince of Wales and Repulse would have been sunk now but there was no body of knowlege that stated such ships would be lost when attacked at full speed, at sea. The Japanese had to support their invasion force with a powerful surface fleet just in case. Likewise any attack on the Phillipines could have been interdicted by the US Asiatic fleet, although it was pretty much scattered. Many of the warships that were supporting other invasions and would have been needed to support the invasion fleet. Again, it would never have been assumed that the US Pacific fleet would have been destroyed at Pearl Harbor so the IJN would have had to plan for at least a half a dozen battleships, cruisers and destroyers attacking their transport fleet. Even a couple of cruisers and a handful of destroyers would have reaped havoc among a minimally protected invasion fleet. I don't think that anyone in the IJN or IJA seriously thought they could take or hold Hawaii. It would have required the diversion of resources desperately needed to take the DEI or New Britain later. Even the attacks on Malaya could have been disasterous if the support ships were gone 5,000 miles away. For the assault to work too many things would have had to go right repeatedly, something that rarely, if ever, happens in wartime. Via hindsite it was possible to get troops ashore, maybe but who knows. Well stated and thought out. Only thing I'd dissagree with is the "12-knot" invasion convoy. While the Japs certainly had some attack transports that could manage this, they lacked any attack cargo vessels and would be using impressed merchant steamers. With these involved, I'd say a "9-knot" convoy was more likely. All in all, it was an operation that might work in a wargame, but not in real life (or even a good simulation game.).

crsutton -> RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii (12/7/2012 5:18:57 PM)
I just don't think Japan could pull of an invasion of that scale where there was opposition. They just did not have the capability to put a force like that ashore fast enough. An invasion of the main island was out of the question.

Canoerebel -> RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii (12/7/2012 6:05:29 PM)
Japan also couldn't be sure that the United States would end up at war with Germany and Italy. Imagine what would have happened had the United States focused on Japan. [X(]

warspite1 -> RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii (12/7/2012 6:40:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel Japan also couldn't be sure that the United States would end up at war with Germany and Italy. Imagine what would have happened had the United States focused on Japan. [X(] warspite1 Would it have made much difference? I mean in the crucial 1942 and early 1943 period. Just thinking aloud - wasn't the navy the key to how quickly the Americans could hit back at the Japanese - and of course the carriers in particular? Sure the US would have more ground forces and aircraft, but what naval assets, operating in the ETO would have made a difference in the Pacific? I guess Guadalcanal would have been reinforced more quickly. Anyone know how the PTO would likely have played out in 1942/43 with full US concentration there?

Canoerebel -> RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii (12/7/2012 6:49:14 PM)
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 -> RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii (12/7/2012 6:58:44 PM)
quote: 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?

Thayne -> RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii (12/7/2012 7:06:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: btbw Civilians aganst japanese soldier? Dont make me laugh. Oahu and loyal? Seriously? What about FIVE internment camps. Or natives, do you remember how PH become as american and what status it have? The citizens of Hawaii were fiercely loyal Americans as reported. Unfortunately, America was a racist country that viewed them with suspicion. Short considered those of Japanese ancestry in Hawaii as enemy soldiers - he treated Hawaii as a base in enemy territory. In spite of this, the Japanese living on the island went to great effort to make a positive contribution to the war effort on the island. They considered America to be their country, and were as devoted to fighting for America as the Japanese in Japan were devoted to fighting for Japan. It is a mistake to take American racism as proof of the disloyalty of Japanese-born Americans and American citizens with Japanese ancestry. Another substantial portion of the population was Philippino - with relatives in the Philippines. Defending America to them was substantially the same as defending their home. Having said that, there IS a potential problem in that, in the case of a Japanese invasion, the American soldiers would have opened up a second front AGAINST the Japanese living in Hawaii when they did not need to. That would have weakened their position.

wdolson -> RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii (12/7/2012 11:25:16 PM)
The policy Roosevelt and Churchill established early on was the "Europe First" strategy, but there was a caveat to that. All US resources would pour into the Pacific until the Japanese expansion was checked. Hence from December 41 to June 42, most US resources went to the Pacific. Some resources went to the Atlantic, mostly ground and logistical forces to set up bases in places like Iceland and pave the way for the 8th AF. The US initially wanted to invade Western Europe in 42 or 43 at the latest, but Churchill talked Roosevelt into the North Africa and Med strategy first which did give US troops combat experience in a less critical theater than Western Europe and one with easier access. If the Japanese had invaded Hawaii, taking back Hawaii probably would have gone to the top of the list. The troops which eventually went to the Torch invasion would have gone to Hawaii instead. As per the strategy, all resources to the Pacific until the situation is stabilized. In the real war that didn't include a lot of US Army ground troops because there were not that many places for them to go in the early going. The Allies were mostly shoring up bases to keep the supply lines to Australia open and letting islands that weren't critical to that strategy fall to the Japanese pretty much without a fight. The Allies could have used more warships, especially carriers, but only garrison sized land units were required, so the US was free to prep some divisions to go to Africa. Instead if there had been a fight for Hawaii, there would have been an early ground game. Hawaii is a long way from both Japan and the US mainland, but it's a lot closer to the US than it is Japan. The US had well established supply routes to Hawaii before the war with ships built for the job. Japan with a much more compact maritime empire before the war didn't have the long range, large cargo ships the US had and would have been hard pressed to keep Hawaii adequately supplied. Add to this the probability that the US would kick off the submarine campaign to interdict any cargo ships sailing to Hawaii rather than Japan and the Japanese merchant marine would be in for a tough time. Even with bad US torpedoes initially, the US subs would be operating at much shorter ranges (from West Coast bases most likely) and they would be free to attack unescorted merchant ships on the surface. The US would easily raise a large guerrilla force in Hawaii that would keep the occupying troops busy and probably disable or destroy some of their installations. This force would be much easier to supply than the guerrillas in the Philippines were. If the Japanese failed to capture all the islands in one go, that would leave the door open for the US fortifying the remaining islands and reinforcing them. When the time came the troops from the held islands could be used to recapture the other islands. As the British had already done for Malta, US carriers could deliver P-40s to the islands that held out to bolster the defense. When it came time for large troop and supply deliveries, the transports would be covered by a mix of USN F4Fs and USAAF P-40s. As pointed out by others here, Hawaii would have been a huge resource suck for the Japanese with little gain. There are few resources there the Japanese needed. The islands are far more use to the US as a forward base. It's doubtful the Japanese could have held one or more of the Hawaiian islands for more than 6 months. They would have been playing into American strengths trying to hold on and all the resources going into Hawaii would not be going somewhere else where it was badly needed. The best Japanese scenario would be the war lasts 6-12 months longer because the US loses a lot of ships in the Hawaiian operation and takes longer to recover. The worst case is the war is shortened because the US learns the tricks of island warfare with the Japanese earlier fighting on home turf and Japan is strategically weakened by losing a lot of resources into a black hole in Hawaii. Bill

spence -> RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii (12/8/2012 12:06:54 AM)
The Japanese ALMOST ran out of ammunition when they attacked/conquered Singapore. Singapore was a good deal closer to IJA supply depots than Hawaii. The problem would have been lift. Maintaining one division (reinforced perhaps) on Guadalcanal earned the IJA's sobriquet of "Starvation Island". No a good omen IMHO.

sandman455 -> RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii (12/8/2012 3:45:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel How in the world could Japan have invaded and held the Hawaiian Islands if they barely managed to get a division ashore at Guadalcanal over an extended period - and never managed to get the division's heavy gear ashore? Guadalcanal and Pearl might not be completely similar since Japan might have been able to get more ashore at Guad had they managed to control the air, but the operation as a whole illustrated just how poor Japan was for managing a major amphibious operation. Hawaii? No way. While most of what is thread addresses much of the issues involved in attacking Hawaii, the conclusions are all based on conjecture. What is not is that the Japanese managed land a couple hundred thousand troops throughout the SRA during December 1941. The Philippines alone was over 120,000. This is indicative of what they were capable of with a few months planning. If there was a real desire to forget about the PI and put troops on the beaches of Hawaii in Dec41 they could have done it. How many and what would have been the result - who knows? Our game does a nice job of trying to figure that out. It would have been ugly no doubt but I'm not prepared to say it couldn't succeed. As for those who posted up about the civilian population - only the younger generation was all that patriotic. The elders - especially the 35-40% of Japanese decent - weren't from what heard and read. They were actually quite indifferent, and this included the elder Polynesians. These elders, while being too old to be much of a combat threat, wouldn't be so gungho to run out into the jungle and continue the fight. BTW it was this group that got interned. You got to remember this was a different era and a far different culture. You didn't dismiss the opinion of your elders so readily. If they weren't going to support your partisan activity, IMHO many of the patriotic youth might have been forced to bury their angst at least until there was just cause to start hating the enemy. Knowing the Japanese of this era - it wouldn't have been all that long.

LoBaron -> RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii (12/8/2012 11:45:23 PM)
quote: What is not is that the Japanese managed land a couple hundred thousand troops throughout the SRA during December 1941. The Philippines alone was over 120,000. This is indicative of what they were capable of with a few months planning. If there was a real desire to forget about the PI and put troops on the beaches of Hawaii in Dec41 they could have done it. Comparing the invasion of the the Philippines, or Malaya FWIIW, to the task of getting 3 divisions worth of troops and combat supplies for several weeks across 3400nm (IF they chose the direct route) of water, without being spotted, with an intact enemy fleet in the way, just to land them halfdead on a couple of obvious landing beaches after they were busy puking their guts out for a couple of weeks, is not making much sense.

mike scholl 1 -> RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii (12/8/2012 11:57:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron Comparing the invasion of the the Philippines, or Malaya FWIIW, to the task of getting 3 divisions worth of troops and combat supplies for several weeks across 3400nm (IF they chose the direct route) of water, without being spotted, with an intact enemy fleet in the way, just to land them halfdead on a couple of obvious landing beaches after they were busy puking their guts out for a couple of weeks, is not making much sense. It took the Japanese 2 and one half weeks to be confident enough to make the main landings in the Philippines..., and even then they landed at the wrong beaches. Landing successfully on Oahu is the stuff of "pipedreams".

crsutton -> RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii (12/9/2012 1:26:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sandman455 quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel How in the world could Japan have invaded and held the Hawaiian Islands if they barely managed to get a division ashore at Guadalcanal over an extended period - and never managed to get the division's heavy gear ashore? Guadalcanal and Pearl might not be completely similar since Japan might have been able to get more ashore at Guad had they managed to control the air, but the operation as a whole illustrated just how poor Japan was for managing a major amphibious operation. Hawaii? No way. While most of what is thread addresses much of the issues involved in attacking Hawaii, the conclusions are all based on conjecture. What is not is that the Japanese managed land a couple hundred thousand troops throughout the SRA during December 1941. The Philippines alone was over 120,000. This is indicative of what they were capable of with a few months planning. If there was a real desire to forget about the PI and put troops on the beaches of Hawaii in Dec41 they could have done it. How many and what would have been the result - who knows? Our game does a nice job of trying to figure that out. It would have been ugly no doubt but I'm not prepared to say it couldn't succeed. As for those who posted up about the civilian population - only the younger generation was all that patriotic. The elders - especially the 35-40% of Japanese decent - weren't from what heard and read. They were actually quite indifferent, and this included the elder Polynesians. These elders, while being too old to be much of a combat threat, wouldn't be so gungho to run out into the jungle and continue the fight. BTW it was this group that got interned. You got to remember this was a different era and a far different culture. You didn't dismiss the opinion of your elders so readily. If they weren't going to support your partisan activity, IMHO many of the patriotic youth might have been forced to bury their angst at least until there was just cause to start hating the enemy. Knowing the Japanese of this era - it wouldn't have been all that long. These were not large amphibious assaults against heavily fortified beachheads. Japan never had that capability. Also, it would not have been a surprise attack. Big difference there.

Gridley380 -> RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii (12/10/2012 9:25:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sandman455 While most of what is thread addresses much of the issues involved in attacking Hawaii, the conclusions are all based on conjecture. What is not is that the Japanese managed land a couple hundred thousand troops throughout the SRA during December 1941. The Philippines alone was over 120,000. This is indicative of what they were capable of with a few months planning. If there was a real desire to forget about the PI and put troops on the beaches of Hawaii in Dec41 they could have done it. One thing the game tends to make us forget is the difference between landing on a hostile shore with enemy troops nearby and landing on a hostile short while enemy troops are actually right there and shooting at you. In reality an enemy division, say, 10 miles from your landing beach isn't going to be able to do anything to keep you from getting ashore but in the game they're in the same hex whether they're 30 yards from the beach or 30 miles. All through the SRA landings the Japanese avoided actual amphibious ASSAULTS (as opposed to amphibious LANDINGS) wherever they could... which was just about everywhere. There was a huge amount of coast and not a lot of Allied troops to defend it. On Oahu they won't have that option. As noted above, by the evening of Dec 7th the US had strung barb wire and dug trenches to cover the invasion beaches. The coast defense batteries were huge (better than anything in the Pacific that was fought for outside of Singapore or Manilla - neither of which the Japanese assaulted from the sea) and placed to cover the beaches the Japanese would HAVE to use. Again, I point people to Wake - the only place where the Japanese actually made an amphibious ASSAULT against a US force in 1941. They got their teeth kicked in by a numerically inferior force while trying to take a glorified sandbar. The 2nd assault succeeded in no small part due to the garrison running out of water. That was after a carrier division from KB pounded a battalion-strength force in basically open terrain. There were more AA guns on Oahu then there were rifles on Wake - softening the island up with air strikes isn't going to end well for the IJN. I heartily recommend reading the appendix in Shattered Sword that analyzes the probable result of the Japanese actually reaching invasion range of Midway per their historical plan.

mike scholl 1 -> RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii (12/10/2012 9:48:56 PM)
Ever since "btbw" left this discussion reason and agreement have flowed from every pen. Guy must have been a "Troll". Though I still can't understand what satisfaction he could obtain from proving himself to be an ignorant, illinformed, and generally moronic twit. Is there a prize I don't know about?

Gridley380 -> RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii (12/10/2012 9:55:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 Ever since "btbw" left this discussion reason and agreement have flowed from every pen. Guy must have been a "Troll". Though I still can't understand what satisfaction he could obtain from proving himself to be an ignorant, illinformed, and generally moronic twit. Is there a prize I don't know about? Judging by the general content of internet discussion boards there must be one, and a good one too. Perhaps a single date with a moderately attractive female?

danlongman -> RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii (12/10/2012 9:58:16 PM)
The only argument I can see for Japanese success is the same one I use for other might-have-beens about the early war. The Allies suffered amazingly, unexpectedly huge disasters at the start of the war - none of which were foreseen. Who knows what kind of incompetence they might have brought to this? Who might have sent the USMC and forgot to bring the ammo or left the keys to the carriers in San Diego on some hooker's nightstand? This is the kind of stuff they did for the first years and spent decades trying to cover up. I do not think the Japanese could have pulled it off but they and the Germans did a lot of stuff nobody thought they could do. Repeatedly. Who knows how much help they would have gotten from the same guys who let them pull off all the upsets they did achieve?

t001001001 -> RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii (12/10/2012 10:21:02 PM)
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 -> RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii (12/10/2012 10:36:33 PM)
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 -> RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii (12/10/2012 11:42:02 PM)
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 -> RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii (12/11/2012 7:24:13 AM)
quote: 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 -> RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii (12/11/2012 11:53:45 AM)
quote: 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 -> RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii (12/11/2012 12:32:43 PM)
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 -> RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii (12/11/2012 12:57:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: 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 -> RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii (12/11/2012 1:05:10 PM)
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 -> RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii (12/11/2012 1:06:54 PM)
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 -> RE: OT question about Japan invading Hawaii (12/11/2012 1:26:09 PM)
quote: 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.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.359375