Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

How Yamamoto screwed the poochFollow

#27 Dec 07 2011 at 8:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'll knock this scenario out in a couple games of Axis & Allies and get back to ya.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#28 Dec 07 2011 at 8:43 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
I'll elucidate at this point that due to the coal and iron deposits in Manchucko, the IJE had all the resources it needed; it just failed to utilize them in a timely manner. They had had these resources available from at least 1938 on and dropped the ball.


Yup. So the issue hinged not on choices made with regard to the attack on Peal Harbor, but with the management of the resources they'd spent so much effort to obtain. Now we could play the "what if Japan had utilized those resources better" game, but that's an entirely different question. They had what they wanted, and could have simply held the territory they'd gained against US intervention and done everything they could to avoid war
Yeah, welcome to the point.


Then there's your answer. If they'd had those resources available directly for their war effort, they would not have needed to attack the US at all. Your initial question is therefore somewhat pointless. Japan's reason for attacking us at Pearl Harbor was entirely to create sufficient breathing room so that they could consolidate those resources and utilize them to solidify their control over the region without US interference.

A bit less dismissive argument is that japan would have been much better off simply using those resources to build military assets to defend the sphere it was interested in. It could therefore have acted with impunity in the area and challenged the US to do something about it. In all probability we would *not* have intervened in that case, exactly because attempting to engage in a military action that far away would not have been feasible. It was because Japan didn't have those resources that the US could continue intervening (without actually starting a full war), which led to the decision to attack Pearl Harbor. If they'd had sufficient forces to do the type of invasion you're talking about, they could have simply driven US forces out of bases in the region and then laughed at the US fleet sitting on the other side of the ocean and unable to do anything about it.


The lack of those resources drove that decision. It's why they were unwilling to engage the US in the South Pacific in any direct way. They saw the fleet in Hawaii as a big enough threat that they needed to destroy it prior to taking any direct action. Sufficient military force would have made that unnecessary.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#29 Dec 07 2011 at 8:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
Perl harbor had a fairly sizeable and alert marine contingant at the time of the attack. The concern that basically doomed the air response (aside from the fact that most of the airplanes were brewster buffalos and had they taken off the crews would have been slaughtered) was one that sabatoge was likely. So they had all the airplanes rounded up and placed under armed guard round the clock, rather than stationed on the ready pads as normal. The island itself had a very large detachment of Military Police, and small arms were in ready supply, accessable, and as it turned out, were largely untouched by the attacking planes. During and after the attack, there was an immidiate effort to put out fires and salvage some of the ships, however if a landing force had been inbound, there would have been a large amount of manpower available to man guns.

There were not many tanks on hand at perl harbor, but the tanks the japanese had at the start of the war were crap even compared to the ones we started with. We did have fully emplaced hardened artilliary along most of the key potential landing positions, and most of that wasn't hit by the fighters, so it theoreitically would have been available to destroy landing craft. Obviously if they were planning on landing, those emplacements would have been a priorty target, but to attack them you have to take away from the aircraft assigned to bomb the ships.

Either way, the other issue a landing would have faced was the destroyer screens for Perl were mainly intact some were sunk, along with some of the cruisers, but there were still plenty afloat. Unless they sent a battleship in with the landing craft, or diverted air power to take them out, landing craft would have been obliterated by even the most obsolete destroyer on the scene.

Japanese landing craft at the beginning of the war are also generally much slower than their other military assets. The carriers would have been forced to make a much slower approach then they did otherwise, and spend more time in danger of a retaliatory attack. Had the B-17 bombers on training in the area arrived earlier than they did, they might have been in time to catch the carrier fleet after the attack. they definitly would have arrived in time to bomb the crap out of an invasion force, though with mostly untried crews and light ammo loads there might not have been much they could have done.

Finally, Even with the damage the battleships took, had there been something to shoot at, at least one or two of the main guns would have been operational. The nevada definitly could have fired and rotated turrets for example before it was beached. Any military landing near that position would have been in range of at least some battleship fire.

If you theorize taking the entire phillipies occupation force and combining that with the pearl harbor raid, maybe. I don't think they could have supported it and held, especially since they were in B-17 range even then. if nothing else, we would have pounded the island flat rather than letting them have it. I think trying a landing would have risked slowing things down enough that the battleships would have been alert and cleared for action, with search planes out and hunting. If the battleships had caught the carriers, it would have been a very different outcome and a much shorter war for japan...
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#30 Dec 07 2011 at 9:29 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I'll knock this scenario out in a couple games of Axis & Allies and get back to ya.


I've played a couple outstanding games as Japan against a lackluster US player. You absolutely can take Australia and Hawaii. Eventually, you can take Alaska and toss some air strikes against the west coast of the US. But the game ends (ie: you win) long before you're really in a position to invade the US mainland. I suppose if you deliberately stretch things out and are playing against a particularly crappy player, you could take the US as Japan. But the objectives of the game at least put much more of a focus on crunching Russia once you have established superior naval forces in the Pacific.

I think I might have landed forces on the West Coast in a game once. Been a long time since I played regularly though, so my memory is kinda fuzzy. I know that even a semi-decent player can prevent Japan from really doing anything directly against the US. It's all about control of the Pacific islands and it's really hard for either player to push past that. The game is somewhat biased towards an eventual US win though. If the US and Japan players are similarly skilled and make no significant mistakes (and their allies don't ***** up too badly), the US can eventually push Japan back and start bombing the main islands. But it takes a really long time and most games end with the US still bombing Japan to weaken its defenses enough to even contemplate an assault.

It's by far the most fun total WW2 board game though. Loved playing that back in the day.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#31 Dec 08 2011 at 11:08 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
This thread has reminded me that I need to find a group for tabletop strategy games.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#32 Dec 08 2011 at 3:33 PM Rating: Good
Yamamoto said that a lion needs to use all of it's strength to kill a rabbit. The attack on Pearl Harbor was a brilliant strategic move. However, the mistakes made by Japan and the carrier force enabled the United States to be in the war right away. They missed the US Carriers. (They were out on training) They did do damage to the Battleships in port. Most were very outdated and due for retrofitting. They didn't sink most of the cruisers and destroyers. They completely missed the fleets oil storage tanks. The biggest mistake was enraging the United States. It was just a scant few months later and Doolittle bombed Tokyo with bombers launched from the very carriers the first Japanese attack missed.
#33 Dec 10 2011 at 10:30 AM Rating: Good
***
1,025 posts
I recall reading somewhere that there were US plans to abandon the Philippines if that was the only US asset that was attacked.

Deadgye wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
Seeing how the Japanese treated other people in the areas they controlled, hell no. I don't think native Hawaiians would be happier as sex slaves as opposed to disenfranchised Americans. Not that we treated them "well" when Hawaii was integrated into the US, but from what I've heard, the Japanese were much, much worse to non-Japanese folks.


We need more discussion about this. Is there a historical backing for this comment or was it designed just to get my hopes up?


It would likely be unpleasant for the Hawaiian population, for both Japanese-Americans and non-Japanese. Most people focus on the non-Japanese comfort women, and tend to forget that there were Japanese comfort women as well, a solid majority of them were. The Japanese on Hawaii would likely be treated similarly to Okinawans, as a sort of "lesser Japanese". Most of the Hawaiian population would be involved in light military industry or agriculture, not as sex slaves, but still worked under cruel conditions.

There would be, similarly to the Philippines, a significant resistance movement (Much of the 442nd did come from Hawaii, after all). Repercussions for resistance would be just as harsh if not worse for Japanese-Americans, since they would be seen as traitors to the Empire.

In an eventual US liberation of the Hawaiian islands, Imperial Japan would likely attempt to coerce many of the 150 000 Japanese on the islands to fight the off American Marines. This wouldn't be very successful. There would be significant civilian casualties however, for obvious reasons.
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 163 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (163)