No Pearl Harbor and No War in 1941

[old_pop2000]

Another interesting alternate history, offered by Edward Miller. What if the US freezes Japanese accounts in the US, blocks the sale of gold for dollars and essentially blocks the trading or the use of US dollars for buy raw materials and finished products, but the Japanese Navy does not recommend or the Japanese government decides to tough it out at home and not initiate hostilities. This means the Japanese basically live with bankrupcy. They wait to see how the German's fair against the British and Russians, before deciding about whether to go south.

How would events have looked, how would they have transpired?

Remember, Pacific fleet then still has the OBB, but has Washington, SD, Indiana and NC. They have Lexington, Saratoga, Yorktown, Enterprise, Hornet and Wasp. The Essex's class is nearing its first completions. Pearl Harbor is improved, along with possibly an extensive Air Defense System. Our war production has ramped up to assist our Allies. By the end of 1942, the Japanese will no longer be close, in the ratio of ships to the US. The next Japanese carrier to be completed is the Taiho, in 1943. So they will have only their six carriers.

Anyway, I will leave the details to the discussion. Let's try to focus on how the Japanese cope with this situation. They have stockpiled much of what they need. In fact, without a war, their oil supplies will last for a minimum of two years or better. Stop the war in china, and we will unfreeze their assets.

What are their choices? Note, according to the Bank of Japan records, by 1939-1940 Japan had exhausted its gold reserves. She was self sufficient in iron ore, salt and coal. However, she depended on imports for oil, bauxite(aluminum ore), scrap iron, rubber, nickel, cobalt, molybdenum, raw cotton, and wool.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Another interesting alternate history, offered by Edward Miller. What if the US freezes Japanese accounts in the US, blocks the sale of gold for dollars and essentially blocks the trading or the use of US dollars for buy raw materials and finished products, but the Japanese Navy does not recommend or the Japanese government decides to tough it out at home and not initiate hostilities. This means the Japanese basically live with bankrupcy. They wait to see how the German's fair against the British and Russians, before deciding about whether to go south.

How would events have looked, how would they have transpired?

Remember, Pacific fleet then still has the OBB, but has Washington, SD, Indiana and NC. They have Lexington, Saratoga, Yorktown, Enterprise, Hornet and Wasp. The Essex's class is nearing its first completions. Pearl Harbor is improved, along with possibly an extensive Air Defense System. Our war production has ramped up to assist our Allies. By the end of 1942, the Japanese will no longer be close, in the ratio of ships to the US. The next Japanese carrier to be completed is the Taiho, in 1943. So they will have only their six carriers.

Anyway, I will leave the details to the discussion. Let's try to focus on how the Japanese cope with this situation. They have stockpiled much of what they need. In fact, without a war, their oil supplies will last for a minimum of two years or better. Stop the war in china, and we will unfreeze their assets.

What are their choices? Note, according to the Bank of Japan records, by 1939-1940 Japan had exhausted its gold reserves. She was self sufficient in iron ore, salt and coal. However, she depended on imports for oil, bauxite(aluminum ore), scrap iron, rubber, nickel, cobalt, molybdenum, raw cotton, and wool.

Dennis:

If Japan waits until mid-1942, she might decide that Germany has already shot its bolt. Her only real course is to strike South for the resources, knowing that she will only face the USN if it comes to that. Now will FDR be able to persuade Congress to declare war on Japan if she doesn't attack Pearl Harbor or the Philippines? I'm not sure that could happen.

[Campy]

Other than withdrawing from China to meet the U.S. demands, I can see no alternative to war. Japan has been bankrupted. What other course do they have? sitting on a street corner with a cup in hand? Inaction will only worsen their plight.

Frank

[asnrobert]

Other than withdrawing from China to meet the U.S. demands, I can see no alternative to war. Japan has been bankrupted. What other course do they have? sitting on a street corner with a cup in hand? Inaction will only worsen their plight.

Frank

I don't see Japan pulling out of China as that would cause them to lose face.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I don't see Japan pulling out of China as that would cause them to lose face.

Robert:

If they don't pull out of China, then they have to go to war to gain the resources that have been cutoff. The only question is avoid attacking US possessions and hope that the US stays out of the war. There was a great deal of concern over whether FDR could convince Congress to go to war to protect European colonies.

[djcyclone]

Dennis:

If Japan waits until mid-1942, she might decide that Germany has already shot its bolt. Her only real course is to strike South for the resources, knowing that she will only face the USN if it comes to that. Now will FDR be able to persuade Congress to declare war on Japan if she doesn't attack Pearl Harbor or the Philippines? I'm not sure that could happen.

I was just thinking about this the other day. I did not read any additional books or anything, but I just started wondering, if Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor, or the Philipeans, or any U.S. base.

What if they simply declared war on Britain, announcing their alliance to Germany and Italy. Move against British interest in the South Pacific. I think this would have given them the East Indies, New Guinie, New Zealand. Over time they could have built up enough forces to invade Austrailia. The Dutch Navy, Australian Navy, and even the British Units in the South Pacific would have been little trouble for the Japanese.

They could have attacked French Indo China, giving them present day Vietnam and all of those countries. I imagine the U.S. would have been vary threatened by a Japanese incursion of such size, but would we have gone to war without a direct engagment against us???

It is no doubt that our anger drove us to war to revenge Pearl Harbor, but if there had been no attack would we have still gone too war? Japan would no longer be restrained by our embargo since they would have oil reseves of the South Pacific. They may even decide to engage India after Austrailia and China have folded.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I was just thinking about this the other day. I did not read any additional books or anything, but I just started wondering, if Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor, or the Philipeans, or any U.S. base.

What if they simply declared war on Britain, announcing their alliance to Germany and Italy. Move against British interest in the South Pacific. I think this would have given them the East Indies, New Guinie, New Zealand. Over time they could have built up enough forces to invade Austrailia. The Dutch Navy, Australian Navy, and even the British Units in the South Pacific would have been little trouble for the Japanese.

They could have attacked French Indo China, giving them present day Vietnam and all of those countries. I imagine the U.S. would have been vary threatened by a Japanese incursion of such size, but would we have gone to war without a direct engagment against us???

It is no doubt that our anger drove us to war to revenge Pearl Harbor, but if there had been no attack would we have still gone too war? Japan would no longer be restrained by our embargo since they would have oil reseves of the South Pacific. They may even decide to engage India after Austrailia and China have folded.


DJ:

This has always been the big unanswered question, could FDR convince Congress which was still of an isolationist mindset to go to war with Japan without a direct threat? Considering that we were willing to overlook the sinking of the gunboat Panay in the 1930s, I don't think FDR could sell the idea of Americans dying to preserve the colonial empires of Britain, France or Holland. Even the torpedoing of the Reuben James was not enough to get the US into the war. Only the direct attack on US soil by Japan could unify the country and send us to war. I do think that with Japan running around SE Asia, that the chances for an "incident" to occur would have increased by a magnitude of ten. But without the direct attack on the US, there is no basis for a declaration of war.

[old_pop2000]

DJ:

This has always been the big unanswered question, could FDR convince Congress which was still of an isolationist mindset to go to war with Japan without a direct threat? Considering that we were willing to overlook the sinking of the gunboat Panay in the 1930s, I don't think FDR could sell the idea of Americans dying to preserve the colonial empires of Britain, France or Holland. Even the torpedoing of the Reuben James was not enough to get the US into the war. Only the direct attack on US soil by Japan could unify the country and send us to war. I do think that with Japan running around SE Asia, that the chances for an "incident" to occur would have increased by a magnitude of ten. But without the direct attack on the US, there is no basis for a declaration of war.
Sadly, Ed, that is probably true. Without an overt act of aggression, the isolationist American people would probably not have stood for any military engagement of the Japanese. It would be difficult to make a case to the American people that a threat of overt action against the Philippines might be a case for war. If the Japanese government was smart, they would have avoided any US possessions, this would have disarmed the Roosevelt Administration. The US people would sanction export licensing controls, controls on the sale of strategic goods, but would not accept any action that could be contrued as aggressive, like financial controls or freezes. Roosevelt was lucky the Japanese eliminated that problem for him.

[djcyclone]

I guess we are fortunate that Japan saw it differently. They thought that we where an extreme threat that needed to be dealt with at the start. That is why they engaged us in such a way that was intended to prevent us from being able to attack them in any way at all.

If Japan had really done all of this, then would we have been able to defeat them after Britain gave up their interest in the South Pacific. I know we would have still been weak, as it was the war that brought us out of the depresion for good, but they would have been week from however many years of non stop war.

And then we go to Europe. Would Germany be able to defeat Britain and Russia if the U.S. did not get involved? I still thank Russia was going to kill Germany no matter what it took, and with them advancing on the eastern front, Germany could not waste enough recources to make an attack on the United Kingdom itself. Then again, Russia was losing at the outset of the war, but was only able to pick up the pace when Britain and The U.S. started sending her supplies. Would we have still sent supplies to Russia, and Britain or would we have pulled the plug and just allowed them to fight their own fight? So many questions pop up with a WHAT IF like this.

[old_pop2000]

Japan, specifically the Army, was focused on China. The Navy was focused on the move southward, it was their strategy not the Army's. The China adventure was costing the government more money and resources every year. The move into China is the strategy that put the Japanese government into the position where they were vulnerable to financial and economic sanctions. The depletion of natural resources is what caused the Navy to begin to look southward for oil, rubber and other vital war materials. The Japanese were opportunist, seeing the occupation of European governments by the Germans, they realized that these governments could not manage their far eastern colonies. This would allow them to move into these areas, giving them closer access to Malaya, Dutch East Indies and New Guinea. But the strategic key to access to these areas was the South China Seas and the Philippines were key to the protection of this vital area of sea communications.

It is important to remember this information, because any action in 1942, as an alternative to Pearl Harbor, is based on this knowledge.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Sadly, Ed, that is probably true. Without an overt act of aggression, the isolationist American people would probably not have stood for any military engagement of the Japanese. It would be difficult to make a case to the American people that a threat of overt action against the Philippines might be a case for war. If the Japanese government was smart, they would have avoided any US possessions, this would have disarmed the Roosevelt Administration. The US people would sanction export licensing controls, controls on the sale of strategic goods, but would not accept any action that could be contrued as aggressive, like financial controls or freezes. Roosevelt was lucky the Japanese eliminated that problem for him.

Dennis:

I agree, and I am looking forward to reading Miller's account of the leverage that put Japan basically on the road to doom and destruction. Nobody wanted a war even if they knew deep down in their hearts it was coming. It was always "hold it off for a few more months or years". But History marches to its own agenda.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I guess we are fortunate that Japan saw it differently. They thought that we where an extreme threat that needed to be dealt with at the start. That is why they engaged us in such a way that was intended to prevent us from being able to attack them in any way at all.

If Japan had really done all of this, then would we have been able to defeat them after Britain gave up their interest in the South Pacific. I know we would have still been weak, as it was the war that brought us out of the depresion for good, but they would have been week from however many years of non stop war.

And then we go to Europe. Would Germany be able to defeat Britain and Russia if the U.S. did not get involved? I still thank Russia was going to kill Germany no matter what it took, and with them advancing on the eastern front, Germany could not waste enough recources to make an attack on the United Kingdom itself. Then again, Russia was losing at the outset of the war, but was only able to pick up the pace when Britain and The U.S. started sending her supplies. Would we have still sent supplies to Russia, and Britain or would we have pulled the plug and just allowed them to fight their own fight? So many questions pop up with a WHAT IF like this.

DJ:

Prior to the US entry into the war, Britain was barely holding its own in the Middle East and the Med. Russia was taking advantage of a widley spread out Germany. Take the US out of the equation and the Middle East becomes a stalemate that Germany could walk away from and Britain was stuck defending. Britain is in no position to launch an offensive anywhere until the US joins in. Gemany could go strategically defensive in the West while concentrating on Russia.

[Kyle Holgate]

DJ:

Prior to the US entry into the war, Britain was barely holding its own in the Middle East and the Med. Russia was taking advantage of a widley spread out Germany. Take the US out of the equation and the Middle East becomes a stalemate that Germany could walk away from and Britain was stuck defending. Britain is in no position to launch an offensive anywhere until the US joins in. Gemany could go strategically defensive in the West while concentrating on Russia.

The one thing Britain could and would do is start the bombing offensive. This at least sucked 88mm flak from the front lines as well as aircraft and manpower that could be used elsewhere. It was not quite a second front but it wasn't far from it.
The Germans didn't have to worry about a cross channel invasion however, without the US - at most the British could have made mischief raids, though after Dieppe they never did historically.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The one thing Britain could and would do is start the bombing offensive. This at least sucked 88mm flak from the front lines as well as aircraft and manpower that could be used elsewhere. It was not quite a second front but it wasn't far from it.
The Germans didn't have to worry about a cross channel invasion however, without the US - at most the British could have made mischief raids, though after Dieppe they never did historically.

Kyle:

Two points:

Night time bombing was not at any time as much of a threat as daytime bombing. Also 88mm as AT vs AA was already beginning to split off. By 1942, it was no longer an issue, in fact 75mm PAK was more than enough to handle any tank until the JSII showed up in 1944. Non issue totally.

Germany doesn't begin to feel the pinch until she is stuck in both North Africa and Russia and that's not unitl late 1941 early 1942. She is still holding ground strategically until Stalingrad/El Alamein.

[djcyclone]

The thing I wonder, is would the U.S. have continued to provide supplies to the U.K. and too the U.S.S.R. Convincing Congress to go too war, and convincing them to put people in harms way to help preserve U.S. interest in the long run, are two different things entirely.

FDR might have been able too pull that one off, but then one must ask "would U.S. supplies have been able too give the U.K, and the U.S.S.R. the upper hand, and would providing supplies without actually going too war bring the U.S. out of the depression?"

[asnrobert]

Kyle:

Two points:

Night time bombing was not at any time as much of a threat as daytime bombing. Also 88mm as AT vs AA was already beginning to split off. By 1942, it was no longer an issue, in fact 75mm PAK was more than enough to handle any tank until the JSII showed up in 1944. Non issue totally.



From what I've read, the 88 mm was the only gun that could stop the British Matilda tank.

[old_pop2000]

The thing I wonder, is would the U.S. have continued to provide supplies to the U.K. and too the U.S.S.R. Convincing Congress to go too war, and convincing them to put people in harms way to help preserve U.S. interest in the long run, are two different things entirely.

FDR might have been able too pull that one off, but then one must ask "would U.S. supplies have been able too give the U.K, and the U.S.S.R. the upper hand, and would providing supplies without actually going too war bring the U.S. out of the depression?"

Gents:
Let's stop and look at a timeline of events occurring around the time of December 7th.

July 26,1941 - US freezes Japanese assets and accounts - I call this type of event, a trigger event. The flowchart of decisions can now take several paths

The Japanese can now begin preparations for war, and the resulting trigger event is Pearl Harbor

The Japanese can decide to restrict domestic use of resources, and simply tough it out.

They can also simply pull out of China.

August 1st, 1941 - US declares an oil embargo against all aggressor nations - This is really not a trigger event - With their dollars in US banks frozen, the Japanese cannot buy oil anyway.

Oct 2 through Dec. 5th - German forces capture Rostov, Odessa, Kharkov and reach Sevastapol. The Germans finally give up their intent to take Moscow this year.

Dec. 6th - Russians launch a major offensive around Moscow

Dec. 7th - Japanese attack Pearl Harbor - Another trigger event - But in our alternative history, the Japanese do not move south, or attack Pearl Harbor. So, no trigger event occurs

December 11th - Germans, in our scenario, do not declare war on the US.

January 1st - Declaration of United Nations signed by 26 Allied Nations - Does this occur if we are not at war with Japan or Germany?


January 13th - Uboat attacks on the East coast - Never happen, no declared war with Germany.

January 26th - First American forces arrive in GB - Ditto

January 21st- July 1st Rommel Offensive from El Agheila to El Alamein - Does Rommel run out of fuel and supplies at El Alamein with the US not in the war. Remember Wasp delivered Spitfires to Malta in April 1942, which helped to regain air control over the supply routes leading from Naples to Tripoli. Can the British perform this without Wasp, who would not have been able to perform this mission as a neutral nation? Note also, without the addition of US troops to english soil, can the British reinforce Montgomery in Africa safely.

May 30th - First Thousand Plane Raid

November 8th - Torch begins - Never happens.


Well, I've bored you enough. This has been very rudimentary, but it should, hopefully illustrate how things might have gone and possibly you can see that they would have been drastically different. All because Japan decides not to attack the US. I hope this helps

August 17th - First all US air attack of the war - Never happens

[old_pop2000]

From what I've read, the 88 mm was the only gun that could stop the British Matilda tank.
That is not true, the 5cm AT gun with the armor piercing composite rigid could penetrate the 78mm of armor on the Matilda 2 at 500 yards. The Mark IV F2 with the L/43 had a 34% chance of defeating the Matilda at 500 meters where the Matilda only had a 26% probability of defeating the Mark IV. The 2 pounder on the Matilda 2 did not have HE rounds, only solid shot.

[Warship NWS]

That is not true, the 5cm AT gun with the armor piercing composite rigid could penetrate the 78mm of armor on the Matilda 2 at 500 yards. The Mark IV F2 with the L/43 had a 34% chance of defeating the Matilda at 500 meters where the Matilda only had a 26% probability of defeating the Mark IV. The 2 pounder on the Matilda 2 did not have HE rounds, only solid shot.

Added notes, in France 1940 vs the PzIIIs, early PzIVs, and 37mm ATGs the Matilda IIs proved almost invulnerable but their gun proved inferior against upgraded PzIVs and useless vs AT guns so in turn the 50mm ATG proved dangerous. The 37mm ATG also proved almost worthless against the CharBis.

Thanks.

[djcyclone]

So to sumarize, we can say that if the U.S. does not enter the war, Germany might win, or at least pull out a stalemate, and force U.K. and U.S.S.R. (what's left of the two of them) to sign a peace treaty reconizing Germany's right too maintain political & military control over France (wouldn't hurt my feelings :D) and allow Germany to maintain control over all other occupied territory.

It is doubtful that Germany could maintain control over the occupied territories for long. I have read that if Germany got anywhere close too their dream of conquering the world, the Empire would have folded shortly after the war ended. It is simply too dificult to maintain any type control over large areas, even with technology. The Soviet Union probably demonstrated the best ability too do this, but even they folded after enough time had passed.

[old_pop2000]

I don't know if we can reach that conclusion from here, without detailing all the future actions based on possibly new trigger events. Certainly, stalemate is one possibility, maybe even a Russian armistice with Germany, but I don't think we can safely state that Germany could have won if the US does not enter the war. We might have entered the war through any number of ways, that don't require Japan to attack us. The German's might decide if the Russian campaign and North African campaign's are successfully concluded, that they have the resources to add us to the belligerents list. Possibly, they will just keep us and the most of Northern and Southern hemisphere neutral, and just leave it at that. You have to develop a flowchart of events and trigger events with all possibilities, to really state that and it would require an enormous computer.

We have to limit ourselves to developing an alternative history that simply flowcharts possible Japanese actions. That would be my opinion.

[djcyclone]

Honestly I think if Japan had not involved us in the war they would have done great. I think they would have taken all of the British, French, and Dutch islands. With New Guinea, Indonesia, New Zealand, eventually Australia, French Indo China, eventually China, and Finally India they would have been a force too reckon with.

The only chance we have of winning is too attack when they are at their weekest (right after they end their advance). If we wait until they rebuild then that would be a war too talk about.

[Ed Rotondaro]

From what I've read, the 88 mm was the only gun that could stop the British Matilda tank.


That was until the PAK 75mm became available. Once it did, the 88s were used either in their AA role or eventually as dedicated AT guns but that is more from 1943 on.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The thing I wonder, is would the U.S. have continued to provide supplies to the U.K. and too the U.S.S.R. Convincing Congress to go too war, and convincing them to put people in harms way to help preserve U.S. interest in the long run, are two different things entirely.

FDR might have been able too pull that one off, but then one must ask "would U.S. supplies have been able too give the U.K, and the U.S.S.R. the upper hand, and would providing supplies without actually going too war bring the U.S. out of the depression?"

DJ:

I believe you would still see the US supplying Britain and Russia even if we're not officially at war with anyone since they doing it before Pearl harbor occured. The US economy was beginning to dig itself out of the Depression mainly due to the the increased buildup of defense industries selling weapons to Britain and France in 1940. Of course nothing compares to the level of employment that occurs when the US actually went to war.

[old_pop2000]

Honestly I think if Japan had not involved us in the war they would have done great. I think they would have taken all of the British, French, and Dutch islands. With New Guinea, Indonesia, New Zealand, eventually Australia, French Indo China, eventually China, and Finally India they would have been a force too reckon with.

The only chance we have of winning is too attack when they are at their weekest (right after they end their advance). If we wait until they rebuild then that would be a war too talk about.
Do you believe that the Roosevelt Administration would have been able to sit by and allow the Far East to be enveloped by the Japanese? As each of the dominoes fell, at some point, even the normally isolationist US people would have been able to read the writing on the wall. Aggressors always slip up. The war almost started with the Panay affair, isn't it possible that an incident like that or mulitple incidents might have triggered the conflict. How long would the Japanese have allowed the US to build up the Philippine forces and US forces, threatening their South China Seas sea communications?

Do not be all that certain, that we would have just allowed the Japanese to run wild in East Asia before drawing the line in the sand.

[djcyclone]

Do you believe that the Roosevelt Administration would have been able to sit by and allow the Far East to be enveloped by the Japanese? As each of the dominoes fell, at some point, even the normally isolationist US people would have been able to read the writing on the wall. Aggressors always slip up. The war almost started with the Panay affair, isn't it possible that an incident like that or mulitple incidents might have triggered the conflict. How long would the Japanese have allowed the US to build up the Philippine forces and US forces, threatening their South China Seas sea communications?

Do not be all that certain, that we would have just allowed the Japanese to run wild in East Asia before drawing the line in the sand.



I agree that FDR would want it too stop. He was willing to put us on negative terms with Japan by placing the embargo, and cutting their oil. He did this just to make them leave China alone. The question is "how much would it take to get Congress behind the affair?"

FDR could always declare war on Japan, by attacking them. He then has 3 months I believe before Congress can pull the plug, but by then we are at war and everything is going full steam. That would probably be FDR's best option as President, but would he have had the ----'s too do it? Japan would be stronger then ever, and their is no guarantee that we would win. Let's face the facts. We simply got lucky in our ability to win at Midway. If we had lost that battle, then our ability to attack would have been cut. We would have few too no carriers, and everytime we launched something new, Japan would simply send everything they had too intercept it. Japan could take control of Pearl Harbor, and Midway, and they would have us by the "you know what's". If we had lost the battle of Midway, the war might have had a vary different out come.

We might have been able to come back, but our Industry does have its limits.

[old_pop2000]

I agree that FDR would want it too stop. He was willing to put us on negative terms with Japan by placing the embargo, and cutting their oil. He did this just to make them leave China alone. The question is "how much would it take to get Congress behind the affair?"

FDR could always declare war on Japan, by attacking them. He then has 3 months I believe before Congress can pull the plug, but by then we are at war and everything is going full steam. That would probably be FDR's best option as President, but would he have had the ----'s too do it? Japan would be stronger then ever, and their is no guarantee that we would win. Let's face the facts. We simply got lucky in our ability to win at Midway. If we had lost that battle, then our ability to attack would have been cut. We would have few too no carriers, and everytime we launched something new, Japan would simply send everything they had too intercept it. Japan could take control of Pearl Harbor, and Midway, and they would have us by the "you know what's". If we had lost the battle of Midway, the war might have had a vary different out come.

We might have been able to come back, but our Industry does have its limits.
DJ:

This situation could be handled like president's in the '50's and 60's handled the march of Communism through the Far East. They called it the Domino effect. They predicted that one nation after another in the region, would fall to Communist invasion. FDR could have used a similar strategy to convince Congress and the US people that the Japanese had to be stopped. Once the Japanese had taken Indochina, then gone after Burma, Thailand and Malaya, possibly even the Dutch East Indies; this strategy could have been convincing to the US people. Hard to say. A couple of incidents with the Asiatic Fleet and the IJN, some of our aircraft shot down; Maybe even some manufactured incidents like the Tonkin Gulf and voila! War in the Pacific.

[asnrobert]

I agree that FDR would want it too stop. He was willing to put us on negative terms with Japan by placing the embargo, and cutting their oil. He did this just to make them leave China alone. The question is "how much would it take to get Congress behind the affair?"

FDR could always declare war on Japan, by attacking them. He then has 3 months I believe before Congress can pull the plug, but by then we are at war and everything is going full steam. That would probably be FDR's best option as President, but would he have had the ----'s too do it? Japan would be stronger then ever, and their is no guarantee that we would win. Let's face the facts. We simply got lucky in our ability to win at Midway. If we had lost that battle, then our ability to attack would have been cut. We would have few too no carriers, and everytime we launched something new, Japan would simply send everything they had too intercept it. Japan could take control of Pearl Harbor, and Midway, and they would have us by the "you know what's". If we had lost the battle of Midway, the war might have had a vary different out come.

We might have been able to come back, but our Industry does have its limits.

If Japan had launched their attack on the NEI without attacking Pearl Harbor, FDR, probably would have initiated "short of war" measures like he did in the Atlantic, looking for an "incident" to get us into the war.

If Japan had wiped out the US carriers at Midway, it would have prevented the US from launching the Guadalcanal campaign, but I think it would have only delayed the inevitable Japanese defeat.
As for the Japanese actually capturing Midway (or Pearl), I don't see that happening. The Japanese had no amphibious training, equipment or doctrine. Their "Special Naval Landing Force" was nothing more than sailors with rifles, definitely not the equivalent of our Marines. The fiasco at Wake, where outnumbered and outgunned US Marines bloodied the Japanese badly before succumbing proved this. And Midway was better garrisoned, including tanks. Even if the Japanese managed to capture Midway, its distance from Japanese bases means it would be vulnerable to its supply lines being cut by US submarines, so its garrison would probably starve like the Japanese troops at Wake. Plus, Midway is too far from Hawaii and too small to support any kind of major campaign against Pearl Harbor. In addition, I don;t believe the Japanese had the manpower or logistics to mount any sort of serious campaign against the Hawaiian islands.

[djcyclone]

If Japan had launched their attack on the NEI without attacking Pearl Harbor, FDR, probably would have initiated "short of war" measures like he did in the Atlantic, looking for an "incident" to get us into the war.

If Japan had wiped out the US carriers at Midway, it would have prevented the US from launching the Guadalcanal campaign, but I think it would have only delayed the inevitable Japanese defeat.
As for the Japanese actually capturing Midway (or Pearl), I don't see that happening. The Japanese had no amphibious training, equipment or doctrine. Their "Special Naval Landing Force" was nothing more than sailors with rifles, definitely not the equivalent of our Marines. The fiasco at Wake, where outnumbered and outgunned US Marines bloodied the Japanese badly before succumbing proved this. And Midway was better garrisoned, including tanks. Even if the Japanese managed to capture Midway, its distance from Japanese bases means it would be vulnerable to its supply lines being cut by US submarines, so its garrison would probably starve like the Japanese troops at Wake. Plus, Midway is too far from Hawaii and too small to support any kind of major campaign against Pearl Harbor. In addition, I don;t believe the Japanese had the manpower or logistics to mount any sort of serious campaign against the Hawaiian islands.



I do not know if I can agree on the Midway idea's. If we had lost then we would have no carriers, or maybe one if we retreated, but Japan would have all 4 or maybe a few less depending on how bad we hit them back. As for Midway being attacked; the Japanes had a vary significant fleet, with Batleships, Cruisers, and Destroyers. Not only could they bomb the hell out of the small island's with aircraft, but they could use shore bombardment. Midway is small and there is no place for U.S. troops to hide from a significant shore bombardment. They may not have too wory about significant resistance in their landings. By the time they send toops ashore, there might only be 20 or 30 toops left to fight. Now Hawaii is different, I will give you that. The islands are larger, there are places too hide, and the population is larger. More troops, so more resistance, and harder to hit. Plus there are more islands, so you have too either attack all of them at once, or hop from island too island.

Now I do agree with the concept of our Submarines starving them out, but if Japan was unchallenged in the air, they might have developed ways to make our subs run for cover. We can only assume that they would follow the same course that they did, not standing a chance against our subs, but if they had the upper hand then we might have had a lot of troubles. That is why I say that anything could have happened with that turning point battle going in favor of the Japanese.

The Jap navy might have been able to keep us on our toes for the rest of the war. They could have developed better anti sub weapons and sensors putting us on the complete defensive. I guess the only chance that we could come back, would be to rebuild our Carrier Fleet on the East Coast, and then traverse through the Panamal Canal and try to take the advantage again. But we would only have one chance at that, and then our economy might be unable too continue popping ships out. We could keep their fleet back with West Coast based bombers, and fighters long enough to get our ships in position too make an attack.

[john964]

FDR could always declare war on Japan, by attacking them. He then has 3 months I believe before Congress can pull the plug, but by then we are at war and everything is going full steam. That would probably be FDR's best option as President, but would he have had the ----'s too do it? Japan would be stronger then ever, and their is no guarantee that we would win. Let's face the facts. We simply got lucky in our ability to win at Midway. If we had lost that battle, then our ability to attack would have been cut. We would have few too no carriers, and everytime we launched something new, Japan would simply send everything they had too intercept it. Japan could take control of Pearl Harbor, and Midway, and they would have us by the "you know what's". If we had lost the battle of Midway, the war might have had a vary different out come.

We might have been able to come back, but our Industry does have its limits.

DJ, You are refering to the War Powers Act which IIRC was not passed untill the 1970's. As to the US losing at Midway. The US would probably not have done Watchtower and Wasp Saratoga and possably Ranger would have spent the next year or so conducting hit and run raids. But by mid to late 43 the USN would be equal to the IJN in carrier aircraft carring capacity and by the end of 43, passed them. Remeber the IJN did not compleat a full sized CV until Taiho was compleated in early 44. During that time the USN 6 Essex class CV's 9 Independence class CVL's and over 30 CVE's of various classes. Plus the USN was building CV's with an average of 50% larger air wings.

[asnrobert]

I do not know if I can agree on the Midway idea's. If we had lost then we would have no carriers, or maybe one if we retreated, but Japan would have all 4 or maybe a few less depending on how bad we hit them back. As for Midway being attacked; the Japanes had a vary significant fleet, with Batleships, Cruisers, and Destroyers. Not only could they bomb the hell out of the small island's with aircraft, but they could use shore bombardment. Midway is small and there is no place for U.S. troops to hide from a significant shore bombardment. They may not have too wory about significant resistance in their landings. By the time they send toops ashore, there might only be 20 or 30 toops left to fight. Now Hawaii is different, I will give you that. The islands are larger, there are places too hide, and the population is larger. More troops, so more resistance, and harder to hit. Plus there are more islands, so you have too either attack all of them at once, or hop from island too island.

Now I do agree with the concept of our Submarines starving them out, but if Japan was unchallenged in the air, they might have developed ways to make our subs run for cover. We can only assume that they would follow the same course that they did, not standing a chance against our subs, but if they had the upper hand then we might have had a lot of troubles. That is why I say that anything could have happened with that turning point battle going in favor of the Japanese.

The Jap navy might have been able to keep us on our toes for the rest of the war. They could have developed better anti sub weapons and sensors putting us on the complete defensive. I guess the only chance that we could come back, would be to rebuild our Carrier Fleet on the East Coast, and then traverse through the Panamal Canal and try to take the advantage again. But we would only have one chance at that, and then our economy might be unable too continue popping ships out. We could keep their fleet back with West Coast based bombers, and fighters long enough to get our ships in position too make an attack.

Yes, Midway was small, but so was Wake, and the Marines there extracted a fearsome toll before surrendering (even after prolonged shelling and bombing). Also, as Parshall and Tully pointed out in Shattered Sword, the Japanese fleet had little training in shore bombardment, unlike the USN, so it might not have been as effective. I'm not saying they couldn't have taken it, but it would still probably be a costly affair like Wake was. And don't forget that Midway had many more airplanes than Wake did.

US subs regularly operated in areas where Japan had air superiority, so I don't see any problems with them operating near Midway (and don't forget the Japanese planes, unlike the Allies, lacked radar). Could they have developed their ASW capabilities more? Possibly, but then, they had no incentive do so until our sub force started doing major damage to their merchant marine.

The Hawaiian islands are going to be off-limits to Japan on so many levels. As I pointed out previously, Midway is too far away and too small to support any kind of attack. Bombers there could reach Pearl Harbor, but they would have to go without fighter protection because of the range, and I have no doubt that the US air defences on Oahu would chew them up. Secondly, I don't believe they could spare the manpower necessary for such an operation. The Japanese Army was heavily involved in China, and the Imperial Army was dubious about any operation that drew resources from that theater (especially if it was a navy plan). Finally, there was the logistics. Japan barely had enough cargo ships in peacetime to support their nation, and the war made heavy demands. Further complicating the issue was that the Japanese navy and army had separate transport fleets, and ships from one service would often make a return trip empty rather than carry cargo belonging to the rival service (In Shattered Sword, the Japanese Army and Navy units earmarked for the Midway landing are carried in separate ships because of this). I simply can't see Japan scraping up the necessary hulls to carry out any sort of Hawaiian operation.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I don't know if we can reach that conclusion from here, without detailing all the future actions based on possibly new trigger events. Certainly, stalemate is one possibility, maybe even a Russian armistice with Germany, but I don't think we can safely state that Germany could have won if the US does not enter the war. We might have entered the war through any number of ways, that don't require Japan to attack us. The German's might decide if the Russian campaign and North African campaign's are successfully concluded, that they have the resources to add us to the belligerents list. Possibly, they will just keep us and the most of Northern and Southern hemisphere neutral, and just leave it at that. You have to develop a flowchart of events and trigger events with all possibilities, to really state that and it would require an enormous computer.

We have to limit ourselves to developing an alternative history that simply flowcharts possible Japanese actions. That would be my opinion.

Dennis:

Germany had more limited objectives in mind than total world conquest. Even Hitler realized there was no way that Germany could bring the war to the US. All he needed was Europe and the ability to dominate it politically and economically. He would have never invaded Greece or Yugoslavia had it not been for Italy dragging Germany there to save their bacon. Most likely we would have seen puppet governments in place in most of the conquered lands and some sort of consolidation of their economies into the greater German Reich. The question becomes does the US sit back and let this happen or do we rearm and start probing for weaknesses?

[Ed Rotondaro]

Honestly I think if Japan had not involved us in the war they would have done great. I think they would have taken all of the British, French, and Dutch islands. With New Guinea, Indonesia, New Zealand, eventually Australia, French Indo China, eventually China, and Finally India they would have been a force too reckon with.

The only chance we have of winning is too attack when they are at their weekest (right after they end their advance). If we wait until they rebuild then that would be a war too talk about.

DJ:

The problem with Australia is that it's like China all over again. A huge land mass that could swallow up armies for very little gain. There was very little heavy industry in Australia at that time period. Japan simply didn't have the resources to conquer, China, Australia and India, nor did it need to. Unlike China, the Indian people made fine soldiers and fought valiantly for the Empire. In fact they were responsible for Japan's defeat in Burma. I see a far more practical strategic course of conquering and defending the Dutch East Indies, all of the Solomons and Indo-China. This gives Japan the resources to fight in China or possibly India and the bases to isolate Australia and NEw Zealand from the war.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Do you believe that the Roosevelt Administration would have been able to sit by and allow the Far East to be enveloped by the Japanese? As each of the dominoes fell, at some point, even the normally isolationist US people would have been able to read the writing on the wall. Aggressors always slip up. The war almost started with the Panay affair, isn't it possible that an incident like that or mulitple incidents might have triggered the conflict. How long would the Japanese have allowed the US to build up the Philippine forces and US forces, threatening their South China Seas sea communications?

Do not be all that certain, that we would have just allowed the Japanese to run wild in East Asia before drawing the line in the sand.

Dennis:

I think that by the end of 1942, the US would have been ready for a war and could have found an excuse for one. FDR had been briefed by his General Staff that the USN would not be ready for an all out war until late 1942. So will Japan let the US continue to fortify the Philippines? One japanese officer stated that as soon as the US based B-17s on the islands, Japan had no choice but to attack the Philippines due to the threat that these bombers posed. So I happen to feel that yes, the US would have been at war with Japan sometime in 1942. It just might not have started at Pearl Harbor.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I agree that FDR would want it too stop. He was willing to put us on negative terms with Japan by placing the embargo, and cutting their oil. He did this just to make them leave China alone. The question is "how much would it take to get Congress behind the affair?"

FDR could always declare war on Japan, by attacking them. He then has 3 months I believe before Congress can pull the plug, but by then we are at war and everything is going full steam. That would probably be FDR's best option as President, but would he have had the ----'s too do it? Japan would be stronger then ever, and their is no guarantee that we would win. Let's face the facts. We simply got lucky in our ability to win at Midway. If we had lost that battle, then our ability to attack would have been cut. We would have few too no carriers, and everytime we launched something new, Japan would simply send everything they had too intercept it. Japan could take control of Pearl Harbor, and Midway, and they would have us by the "you know what's". If we had lost the battle of Midway, the war might have had a vary different out come.

We might have been able to come back, but our Industry does have its limits.

DJ:

I will contest you on several points here. First off, losing at Midway isn't going to hurt the US as much as you might expect. Midway is basically useless to Japan. Trying to keep it supplied would have been a logistical nightmare. In their book "Shattered Sword", authors Parshall and Tully make the case that even a catastrophic defeat at Midway would probably only add one to two years to the war in the Pacific.

This brings up the other point, namely about US industry. If there were limits on the US industrial capability, they certainly were not pushed to the edge in WWII. It took the US about 18 months to totally transition from a peace time economy to a wartime economy. This is why the battles and campaigns fought in 1942 seem so desperate because the weapons and resources were not available yet. But from mid-1943 onward the US commissioned more naval vessels than were in the entire IJN fleet. We trained over 40,000 naval pilots alone. We raised and maintained a 90 division army. We were also able to supply considerable amounts of weapons and supplies to our allies. If you can show a limitation to our industrial capacity I'm all ears. We had about a 0% rate of unemployment during WWII and just about everbody worked overtime and bought war bonds (there were no cars or other consumer goods to waster your money on anyway).

There is no way that Japan could take Hawaii. It would be facing considerable land based air even without the carriers plus rather strong coastal defenses and considerable troops. The efforts to keep a Japanese force supplied that far from its nearest base (Truk lagoon) would have been impossible. Every Japanese merchant ship sent would be a target for subs and planes. Japan's merchant marine was already strained trying to keep the army in China supplied while shipping raw materials from the conquered lands to Japan. It always comes back to logisitics and Japan just didn't have the capability to control that much territory.
Would the war have proceeded differently with a Japanese victory at Midway? Certainly, most likely the US would go on the strategic defensive while building up its strength. There would probably be no Guadalcanal campaign since the US would not have the resources to operate there. Most likely we would attempt to defend Neew Zealand and Australia while biding our time. The war would probably last until 1947.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I do not know if I can agree on the Midway idea's. If we had lost then we would have no carriers, or maybe one if we retreated, but Japan would have all 4 or maybe a few less depending on how bad we hit them back. As for Midway being attacked; the Japanes had a vary significant fleet, with Batleships, Cruisers, and Destroyers. Not only could they bomb the hell out of the small island's with aircraft, but they could use shore bombardment. Midway is small and there is no place for U.S. troops to hide from a significant shore bombardment. They may not have too wory about significant resistance in their landings. By the time they send toops ashore, there might only be 20 or 30 toops left to fight. Now Hawaii is different, I will give you that. The islands are larger, there are places too hide, and the population is larger. More troops, so more resistance, and harder to hit. Plus there are more islands, so you have too either attack all of them at once, or hop from island too island.

Now I do agree with the concept of our Submarines starving them out, but if Japan was unchallenged in the air, they might have developed ways to make our subs run for cover. We can only assume that they would follow the same course that they did, not standing a chance against our subs, but if they had the upper hand then we might have had a lot of troubles. That is why I say that anything could have happened with that turning point battle going in favor of the Japanese.

The Jap navy might have been able to keep us on our toes for the rest of the war. They could have developed better anti sub weapons and sensors putting us on the complete defensive. I guess the only chance that we could come back, would be to rebuild our Carrier Fleet on the East Coast, and then traverse through the Panamal Canal and try to take the advantage again. But we would only have one chance at that, and then our economy might be unable too continue popping ships out. We could keep their fleet back with West Coast based bombers, and fighters long enough to get our ships in position too make an attack.

DJ:

For what it's worth, about 75 to 80 percent of the USN shipyards were on the East Coast and thereby not in any danger from the IJN. The yards on the West coast either built small ships like CVEs or did repairs and refits. The big iron was places like the NY Navy Yard, Bath Iron Works in Maine, Quincy Shipbuilding in Massachusetts and the Philadelphia Navy yard.

Regarding Japan developing better sensors and ASW, without the experiences of war, they will not realize the need for them. Also their record for getting new tech into service was not very good. They didn't the electronics industry that the US had in WWII. We think of Japan these days we think SONY and Toshiba. These kinds of companies were the creation of the 1950s and 1960s (many times with US managerial advice).

[Ed Rotondaro]

DJ, You are refering to the War Powers Act which IIRC was not passed untill the 1970's. As to the US losing at Midway. The US would probably not have done Watchtower and Wasp Saratoga and possably Ranger would have spent the next year or so conducting hit and run raids. But by mid to late 43 the USN would be equal to the IJN in carrier aircraft carring capacity and by the end of 43, passed them. Remeber the IJN did not compleat a full sized CV until Taiho was compleated in early 44. During that time the USN 6 Essex class CV's 9 Independence class CVL's and over 30 CVE's of various classes. Plus the USN was building CV's with an average of 50% larger air wings.

John:

Good points on carrier strengths. Not to mention that Admiral King would have probably transferred every available ship to the West Coast with little or no objection from FDR or the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

[Kyle Holgate]

Assume Midway is captured by the Japanese as planned and the US either lost the carriers or didn't bother to defend the island.
If Enterprise and Hornet are sunk at Midway then I'd agree that the war would have gone on longer. If not - if the only change in our history is that Midway was in Japanese hands in 1942 I doubt the war would have gone on much longer than it did. Midway is a very small set of islands, not big enough to really put a dangerous forward base on. As pointed out too - it's not very defendable and supporting it with supplies would have to run the gauntlet of patrolling subs and possibly long ranged aircraft.
I think the US could have virtually ignored it and moved on. Isolate it, bomb it back to the stone age and head for Tokyo as planned.

[john964]

DJ:

For what it's worth, about 75 to 80 percent of the USN shipyards were on the East Coast and thereby not in any danger from the IJN. The yards on the West coast either built small ships like CVEs or did repairs and refits. The big iron was places like the NY Navy Yard, Bath Iron Works in Maine, Quincy Shipbuilding in Massachusetts and the Philadelphia Navy yard.

Regarding Japan developing better sensors and ASW, without the experiences of war, they will not realize the need for them. Also their record for getting new tech into service was not very good. They didn't the electronics industry that the US had in WWII. We think of Japan these days we think SONY and Toshiba. These kinds of companies were the creation of the 1950s and 1960s (many times with US managerial advice).
IIRC the USN had 6 shipyards on the East Coast and 3 on the West Coast, the East Coast ones were Portsmouth NY, Boston NY, Brooklyn/New York NY, Philadelphia NY, Norfolk NY and Charleston NY. The West Coast ones were Bremerton NY, Mare Island NY and Long Beach NY. This does not take into account civilian shipyards IIRC Bethlehem Steel had 6 shipyards alone.

[Ed Rotondaro]

IIRC the USN had 6 shipyards on the East Coast and 3 on the West Coast, the East Coast ones were Portsmouth NY, Boston NY, Brooklyn/New York NY, Philadelphia NY, Norfolk NY and Charleston NY. The West Coast ones were Bremerton NY, Mare Island NY and Long Beach NY. This does not take into account civilian shipyards IIRC Bethlehem Steel had 6 shipyards alone.

John:

Yes, the civilian yards were a vital component to the overall shipbuilding process. Ingalls and Crump (I believe the last one is gone) were big players.

[john964]

John:

Yes, the civilian yards were a vital component to the overall shipbuilding process. Ingalls and Crump (I believe the last one is gone) were big players.Ed, Do you mean Cramp as in William J Cramp & Sons Ship Building of Philadelphia. The company went out of business in the early 30's but the USGov re-opened it in 1941 and it closed again in 45. The largest ship builders during WWII were Federal SB, Kaiser SB, Todd-Pacific SB, New York SB and the biggest Bethlehem SB.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Ed, Do you mean Cramp as in William J Cramp & Sons Ship Building of Philadelphia. The company went out of business in the early 30's but the USGov re-opened it in 1941 and it closed again in 45. The largest ship builders during WWII were Federal SB, Kaiser SB, Todd-Pacific SB, New York SB and the biggest Bethlehem SB.

John:

That's right, Cramp was revitalized by the government for the war effort. Forgot about Bethlehem though and of course our good friends at Kaiser who built the Liberty ships and CVEs (Combustible, Vunerable and Expendable) aka "Kaiser Coffins". I wonder if any of these companies are around as part of some conglomorate? The US ain't big on merchant ship building anymore. Korea owns that market.

[asnrobert]

Ed, Do you mean Cramp as in William J Cramp & Sons Ship Building of Philadelphia. The company went out of business in the early 30's but the USGov re-opened it in 1941 and it closed again in 45. The largest ship builders during WWII were Federal SB, Kaiser SB, Todd-Pacific SB, New York SB and the biggest Bethlehem SB.


I read somewhere (I think it was Clay Blair's Silent Victory) that there were alot of problems with the Cramp shipyard during WW2 and that other yards had to finish some of their work. I recall reading about the submarine USS Ling (preserved at Hackensack- I've seen her twice in my life). She was launched in 1943 but not commissioned until 1945. I thought that was a rather long time to complete a sub, but then I discovered she was built in the Cramp shipyard.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I read somewhere (I think it was Clay Blair's Silent Victory) that there were alot of problems with the Cramp shipyard during WW2 and that other yards had to finish some of their work. I recall reading about the submarine USS Ling (preserved at Hackensack- I've seen her twice in my life). She was launched in 1943 but not commissioned until 1945. I thought that was a rather long time to complete a sub, but then I discovered she was built in the Cramp shipyard.

Robert:

They must have been off their game since they had been out of business for so long.

[john964]

John:

That's right, Cramp was revitalized by the government for the war effort. Forgot about Bethlehem though and of course our good friends at Kaiser who built the Liberty ships and CVEs (Combustible, Vunerable and Expendable) aka "Kaiser Coffins". I wonder if any of these companies are around as part of some conglomorate? The US ain't big on merchant ship building anymore. Korea owns that market.When in actuallity the Kaiser built CVE's weren't very Combustable and Vunerable, but they were Expendable. Only 3 were sunk out of 50 built. IIRC St Lo was sunk by Kamikaze's, Gambier Bay had brand new 18inch port holes violently installed, and Liscome Bay by torpedo. Beth sold it SB to General Dynamics in the 80's. Kaiser is still around but not as a SB. Along with Todd, Seattle-Tacoma. The US curently only has only 12 or so shipyards capable of bulding ships longer than 200ft.

[Campy]

When in actuallity the Kaiser built CVE's weren't very Combustable and Vunerable, but they were Expendable. Only 3 were sunk out of 50 built. IIRC St Lo was sunk by Kamikaze's, Gambier Bay had brand new 18inch port holes violently installed, and Liscome Bay by torpedo. Beth sold it SB to General Dynamics in the 80's. Kaiser is still around but not as a SB. Along with Todd, Seattle-Tacoma. The US curently only has only 12 or so shipyards capable of bulding ships longer than 200ft.

What about the Block Island? Sunk by the U-549 in the Atlantic. Three torpedoes could ruin anyone's day.

Frank

[john964]

What about the Block Island? Sunk by the U-549 in the Atlantic. Three torpedoes could ruin anyone's day.

Frank
Different class Kaiser built the Casablanca class. Seattle-Tacoma SB built the Bogue class of which USS Block Island belonged. I was answering about Kaiser Koffens.

[Ed Rotondaro]

When in actuallity the Kaiser built CVE's weren't very Combustable and Vunerable, but they were Expendable. Only 3 were sunk out of 50 built. IIRC St Lo was sunk by Kamikaze's, Gambier Bay had brand new 18inch port holes violently installed, and Liscome Bay by torpedo. Beth sold it SB to General Dynamics in the 80's. Kaiser is still around but not as a SB. Along with Todd, Seattle-Tacoma. The US curently only has only 12 or so shipyards capable of bulding ships longer than 200ft.

John:

Liscombe Bay pretty much blew up after taking one torpedo hit. I'd call that Combustible and Vulnerable. The reason so few were lost was more a function of US naval supremacy than for any ruggedness that these ships possessed. Thanks for the info on US shipbuilders, you have more knowledge on this area than myself.

[Ed Rotondaro]

What about the Block Island? Sunk by the U-549 in the Atlantic. Three torpedoes could ruin anyone's day.

Frank

Campy:

I'm surprised it took three torpedoes to sink her. Hell that would be enough to sink a heavy cruiser.

[john964]

John:

Liscombe Bay pretty much blew up after taking one torpedo hit. I'd call that Combustible and Vulnerable. The reason so few were lost was more a function of US naval supremacy than for any ruggedness that these ships possessed. Thanks for the info on US shipbuilders, you have more knowledge on this area than myself. From what I have read she took the hit near her aft bomb magazine and the aft engine room. The ship sank in 23 minutes only 272 of 916 crewmen survived. Among those killed was Dorie Miller who won the Navy Cross at Pearl Harbor.

[Kyle Holgate]

John:

Liscombe Bay pretty much blew up after taking one torpedo hit. I'd call that Combustible and Vulnerable. The reason so few were lost was more a function of US naval supremacy than for any ruggedness that these ships possessed. Thanks for the info on US shipbuilders, you have more knowledge on this area than myself.

So were the Hood, Roma, Arizona, Invincible, Queen Mary and Indefatigable also combustable? My point - any warship can be struck in a weakspot blow up.
Ok, yes - I am playing Devils Advocate this time - heh heh heh.

PITA - Positive Intelligence Taking Action! :p

[Ed Rotondaro]

From what I have read she took the hit near her aft bomb magazine and the aft engine room. The ship sank in 23 minutes only 272 of 916 crewmen survived. Among those killed was Dorie Miller who won the Navy Cross at Pearl Harbor.

John:

Yes, that tracks with what I've read on the subject. As Kyle says, all it takes is one lucky hit to ruin your day at sea. If I recall, Titanic only struck the iceberg once?

[old_pop2000]

PITA - could be interpreted as Puny Intelligence Taking Over:rolleyes:

Just kidding.

[Ed Rotondaro]

PITA - could be interpreted as Puny Intelligence Taking Over:rolleyes:

Just kidding.

Dennis:

Gotta have the A defined. Puny Intelligence Taking Advantage!:D I'm sure we can come up with more definitions for our friend Kyle.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

Gotta have the A defined. Puny Intelligence Taking Advantage!:D I'm sure we can come up with more definitions for our friend Kyle.

Oh I am certain we can do better.

Pitiful Intelligence Taking Aim

Pernicious Intelligence Taking Aim

Pitiable Intelligence Taking Aim

:D:D:D

[Warship NWS]

PITA - Positive Intelligence Taking Action! :p


Nah.. the original meaning is perfect for you.. with a MAJOR PITA... salute added to it. If there is anyone on this team that loves to annoy the boss.. its you. ;)

[john964]

So were the Hood, Roma, Arizona, Invincible, Queen Mary and Indefatigable also combustable? My point - any warship can be struck in a weakspot blow up.
Ok, yes - I am playing Devils Advocate this time - heh heh heh.

PITA - Positive Intelligence Taking Action! :p
Or you could have what happened to the Jean Bart she took a torpedo that narrowly missed the forward magizene but distroyed the ships wine stores which was probably the greater tragedy.

[djcyclone]

Here is something to think about. I do not want to start a new thread, so I just added to this one.

What if France had not been blindsided by Germany in WW II. What if the Germans where stopped dead in their tracks like they where in WW I. I wonder what would have happened in that scenario.

The war probably would have been over by the end 41 at the latest, but it is just a thought. If Germany had not been successful in their attack on France, would Hitler have had the guts to attack the U.S.S.R.?

Remember that Germany and Russia where actually allies when WW II started, and Russia actually helped in the attack on Poland by comming in from the other direction.

That is a whole new thing in its self, because now the allies consist of the U.K. and France. The U.S. may or may not join, and oh my god I can think of a million things that could go wrong with this thought. Maybe I should start a new thread.:D

[old_pop2000]

Here is something to think about. I do not want to start a new thread, so I just added to this one.

What if France had not been blindsided by Germany in WW II. What if the Germans where stopped dead in their tracks like they where in WW I. I wonder what would have happened in that scenario.

The war probably would have been over by the end 41 at the latest, but it is just a thought. If Germany had not been successful in their attack on France, would Hitler have had the guts to attack the U.S.S.R.?

Remember that Germany and Russia where actually allies when WW II started, and Russia actually helped in the attack on Poland by comming in from the other direction.

That is a whole new thing in its self, because now the allies consist of the U.K. and France. The U.S. may or may not join, and oh my god I can think of a million things that could go wrong with this thought. Maybe I should start a new thread.:D
You realize that for the French to be victorious in the Battle of France, many events and factors have to be change. There has to be a complete paradigm shift in the French military and no plane crash in Belgium along with no Manstein plan. They must also have complete air superiority. Hmmm:eek: