We didn't Sink the Bismark

[Wapaloosie73]

It is said if you played the battle of Midway 100 Times in a simulation? The Japanese win over 90% of them..... So many blunders had to take place and line up. 

 

The first big mistake was no Jap sub screen to scout out our approaching fleet. They were over confident after coral sea.

[Sixgun Sheridan]

I actually had a PC strategy game that included the Battle of Midway, with options to play it in either its historically accurate setting or to juggle the fleets at random. Even in the accurate mode, knowing exactly where the Japanese fleet was coming from it was a difficult game to beat. In random mode it was nearly impossible. The battle was fought heroically but won purely by dumb luck.

[DocWard]

2 hours ago, Sixgun Sheridan said:

I think you guys overestimate what the Japanese could have pulled off. Hawaii would've been in deep trouble and possibly even invaded, but the west coast of the USA would've been too much for them to chew. They simply lacked the capacity to hit us directly with anything but small carrier-based airplanes, and they certainly wouldn't have wanted to risk their carriers by sailing them as far as Washington or California. The Japanese never intended to invade the continental United States, but to knock us out of the picture so that they could continue to gobble up territory in SE Asia without interference from us. Their whole game plan was to disable the US Navy long enough for them to finish building their "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" across the western Pacific and be prepared to mount an effective defense to the inevitable US counter-attack. In the end their plans failed because we went on the offense after only six months of fighting, which didn't give them enough time to fortify the islands as much as they wanted to. Just imagine if every single island from Guadalcanal to Tarawa to the Marshalls had been as fortified as Iwo Jima and Okinawa were.

 

1 hour ago, Wapaloosie73 said:

 

Im not talking about invasion and occupation of the US mainland. Although that could have came later. How long did Great Britain dominate the oceans and reap the benefits and build an empire?

 

I’m talking about the domination of the Pacific and the ramifications of that within the time frame of 1941-1945. If their goal was to knock us out of the war, then bombing Bremerton, Long Beach and the Panama Canal would certainly be conducive for their war efforts. 

 

If we lost at Midway? They wouldn’t be fortifying islands in the Pacific. We would be fortifying the West Coast. And probably moving our manufacturing base to Utah and Idaho. Except for ship yards...... We would have been on the defensive. And Europe would have suffered as well. 

 

I think its possibly the world would look very different today. With a third Reich in Europe, a Japanese empire controlling the Pacific and a much diminished USA. No Cold War and Soviet Union.

 

 

Exactly my thinking. Invading the US mainland was impracticable. With multiple carrier task forces supported by battleships, with no immediate threat from our own navy, keeping us at bay in the Pacific was not out of the realm of possibility. It would take a lot to convince me that we could have countered them effectively had we lost our carriers at Midway.

 

[DocWard]

1 hour ago, Wapaloosie73 said:

It is said if you played the battle of Midway 100 Times in a simulation? The Japanese win over 90% of them..... So many blunders had to take place and line up. 

 

The first big mistake was no Jap sub screen to scout out our approaching fleet. They were over confident after coral sea.

 

1 hour ago, Sixgun Sheridan said:

I actually had a PC strategy game that included the Battle of Midway, with options to play it in either its historically accurate setting or to juggle the fleets at random. Even in the accurate mode, knowing exactly where the Japanese fleet was coming from it was a difficult game to beat. In random mode it was nearly impossible. The battle was fought heroically but won purely by dumb luck.

 

Remember, but for a destroyer that had fallen back attempting to sink one of our subs being spotted trying to catch up to the fleet, our SBDs likely would've never found their fleet.

 

I think I might enjoy some of those "alternate history" games. 

[Cheyenne Ranger, 48747L]

On 3/13/2018 at 2:31 PM, Sixgun Sheridan said:

 Of course in those pre-Pearl Harbor days nobody seriously believed a battleship could be sunk by aircraft anyway.

 

Billy Mitchell did

[Chantry]

1 hour ago, DocWard said:

 

 

Exactly my thinking. Invading the US mainland was impracticable. With multiple carrier task forces supported by battleships, with no immediate threat from our own navy, keeping us at bay in the Pacific was not out of the realm of possibility. It would take a lot to convince me that we could have countered them effectively had we lost our carriers at Midway.

 

 

A loss at Midway would have still left the Navy with the USS Saratoga, USS Wasp as well as the USS Ranger which probably have been sent to the Pacific if we had lost all three carriers at Midway.  However everybody is forgetting something, the Japanese did not have the logistical train to invade Hawaii*, much less the West Coast.  It is roughly 4000 nautical miles one way from San Francisco to the naval base in the Kurile Islands from which the Japanese launched their attack on Pearl Harbor and that looks to be the closest naval base to the U.S. when the war started.  A quick internet search and a look at a 1941's Janes strongly suggests that the Japanese Navy had no oilers capable of keeping up with warships and only 4 of the carriers and the 4 converted "fast battleships"** had a range of 10,000 nautical miles.  No cruisers or destroyers had the range to make the round trip and I've read nothing to indicate that IJN was capable of underway replenishment.

 

* The Army had two divisions present on Oahu, although they would be somewhat green as they were still training a lot of new recruits

**  The Kongo class was initially built as battlecruisers in 1913 and were upgraded by 1935 to be fast battleships, although their armor was still substantially inferior to a regular battleship.

[DocWard]

1 hour ago, Chantry said:

 

A loss at Midway would have still left the Navy with the USS Saratoga, USS Wasp as well as the USS Ranger which probably have been sent to the Pacific if we had lost all three carriers at Midway.  However everybody is forgetting something, the Japanese did not have the logistical train to invade Hawaii*, much less the West Coast.  It is roughly 4000 nautical miles one way from San Francisco to the naval base in the Kurile Islands from which the Japanese launched their attack on Pearl Harbor and that looks to be the closest naval base to the U.S. when the war started.  A quick internet search and a look at a 1941's Janes strongly suggests that the Japanese Navy had no oilers capable of keeping up with warships and only 4 of the carriers and the 4 converted "fast battleships"** had a range of 10,000 nautical miles.  No cruisers or destroyers had the range to make the round trip and I've read nothing to indicate that IJN was capable of underway replenishment.

 

* The Army had two divisions present on Oahu, although they would be somewhat green as they were still training a lot of new recruits

**  The Kongo class was initially built as battlecruisers in 1913 and were upgraded by 1935 to be fast battleships, although their armor was still substantially inferior to a regular battleship.

 

Both the Wasp and the Ranger were in the Atlantic at the time of the Battle of Midway. Assuming they could get through the Panama Canal unscathed, that would still have left the U.S. at a significant disadvantage in carrier numbers.

Within short order after Pearl Harbor, the Japanese controlled Wake Island, Guam and more. Being able to control Midway would have meant they had an excellent staging post for an attack on Hawaii. Remember, while it was mostly done as a diversion, the Japanese invaded and garrisoned troops in the Aleutian Islands until the middle of 1943.

[Sedalia Dave]

Don't discount our submarine force. Once the issue with the torpedos was fixed, the Silent Service did a real number on IJN shipping.

[DocWard]

7 minutes ago, Sedalia Dave said:

Don't discount our submarine force. Once the issue with the torpedos was fixed, the Silent Service did a real number on IJN shipping.

 

Have you seen the images of the unexploded torpedo that was used and didn't detonate in the sinking of the Lexington?

[Sixgun Sheridan]

4 hours ago, DocWard said:

Remember, but for a destroyer that had fallen back attempting to sink one of our subs being spotted trying to catch up to the fleet, our SBDs likely would've never found their fleet.

 

I think I might enjoy some of those "alternate history" games. 

 

The Battle of Midway was such a nail-biter from beginning to end it was simply unbelievable. It played out just like a suspense thriller, and the 1970's Charlton Heston movie didn't do it justice. From the ingenious way the US tricked the Japanese into revealing where they were going to attack, to the suspenseful race to be the first to find the opposing fleet, to the tragic sacrifice of the Midway airmen and Navy torpedo planes, to Nagumo's fateful errors in judgment, to the thrilling last-second ambush by the SBDs... it was all there. If only they'd make a new movie about the battle using today's CGI... just keep that stupid Ben Affleck out of it!

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

You want an alternate universe version?

The US has geared up and sent all available manpower to multifront invasions of Europe. The Japs don't have to fortify Pacific islands and invade San Francisco, giving themselves a base from which they can bomb West Coast aircraft plants and Navy bases from Seattle to LA. and SD.

 

The Rooskies see the opportunity to get some territory back and declare war on Japan, sieze the two Japanese footholds in Alaska and drive on to Juneau then to Fort Ross which they consider to have been theirs anyway whereupon they sign a truce with Japan, trading land from Fort Ross to the Canadian border for Manchuria.

 

PS. I don't believe any of this could have happened but you are free to argue it all you want.

[Sixgun Sheridan]

Speaking of alternate universe history, had Hitler not invaded Russia when he did and p***ed them off world history might well have turned out quite differently.

 

Back to battleships, and the Bismarck in particular, Germany actually had audacious plans to build several new superships to rival or even surpass the Japanese Yamatos in size, with guns as large as 20". Early drawings had them looking like the Bismarck but a great deal larger. Had Germany delayed the start of the war until 1944 they might have been built, but as it was they were canceled before even getting off the drawing board because the steel was badly needed elsewhere.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-class_battleship_proposals

[DocWard]

11 minutes ago, Sixgun Sheridan said:

Speaking of alternate universe history, had Hitler not invaded Russia when he did and p***ed them off world history might well have turned out quite differently.

 

Back to battleships, and the Bismarck in particular, Germany actually had audacious plans to build several new superships to rival or even surpass the Japanese Yamatos in size, with guns as large as 20". Early drawings had them looking like the Bismarck but a great deal larger. Had Germany delayed the start of the war until 1944 they might have been built, but as it was they were canceled before even getting off the drawing board because the steel was badly needed elsewhere.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-class_battleship_proposals

 

Sounds a lot like the "Super Yamato" class!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_A-150_battleship

[Wapaloosie73]

4 hours ago, Cheyenne Ranger, 48747L said:

 

Billy Mitchell did

 

So did Yamamoto.

[Chantry]

9 hours ago, DocWard said:

 

Both the Wasp and the Ranger were in the Atlantic at the time of the Battle of Midway. Assuming they could get through the Panama Canal unscathed, that would still have left the U.S. at a significant disadvantage in carrier numbers.

Within short order after Pearl Harbor, the Japanese controlled Wake Island, Guam and more. Being able to control Midway would have meant they had an excellent staging post for an attack on Hawaii. Remember, while it was mostly done as a diversion, the Japanese invaded and garrisoned troops in the Aleutian Islands until the middle of 1943.

Wake Island was a refueling stop for flying boats and was as far away as the Kurile Islands, with Guam even farther and neither was used as a major fleet base by the Japanese.  The weather in the Aleutian Islands was bad that neither side committed very many resources to the area, just enough on each side to turn it into a stalemate until the Japanese pulled their forces out of Kiska after losing Attu to an invasion force.

 

As for Midway, I'm not sure it was big enough  or that the water in the atoll was deep enough to serve as a fleet base, like Wake Island, it's purpose pre-war was to serve as a refueling stop for flying boats.  The Navy did use it as a refueling stop for submarines based in Hawaii and based a submarine tender there in July of 1942.

 

Additionally some have questioned* whether the Japanese Navy could have successfully invaded Midway due to both the Marine defenders and having to attack over the reefs.

 

*From the book "Shattered Sword" by Jonathan Parshall & Anthony Tully.  Definitely a book worth reading, very well researched, it challenges and refutes many of the things most of us have always believed to be true about the Battle of Midway.

 

On edit:  The authors contend that in the greater scheme of things, the battle of Midway really made no difference in the long term outcome of the war and that the war probably would have been over by the end of 1946 as the U.S. was about a year away (May-July 1943) from receiving the Essex class fleet carriers, the Independence class light carriers  and all other ships, planes and other equipment that the war industry was producing in large quantities.

[DocWard]

3 hours ago, Chantry said:

Wake Island was a refueling stop for flying boats and was as far away as the Kurile Islands, with Guam even farther and neither was used as a major fleet base by the Japanese.  The weather in the Aleutian Islands was bad that neither side committed very many resources to the area, just enough on each side to turn it into a stalemate until the Japanese pulled their forces out of Kiska after losing Attu to an invasion force.

 

As for Midway, I'm not sure it was big enough  or that the water in the atoll was deep enough to serve as a fleet base, like Wake Island, it's purpose pre-war was to serve as a refueling stop for flying boats.  The Navy did use it as a refueling stop for submarines based in Hawaii and based a submarine tender there in July of 1942.

 

Additionally some have questioned* whether the Japanese Navy could have successfully invaded Midway due to both the Marine defenders and having to attack over the reefs.

 

*From the book "Shattered Sword" by Jonathan Parshall & Anthony Tully.  Definitely a book worth reading, very well researched, it challenges and refutes many of the things most of us have always believed to be true about the Battle of Midway.

 

On edit:  The authors contend that in the greater scheme of things, the battle of Midway really made no difference in the long term outcome of the war and that the war probably would have been over by the end of 1946 as the U.S. was about a year away (May-July 1943) from receiving the Essex class fleet carriers, the Independence class light carriers  and all other ships, planes and other equipment that the war industry was producing in large quantities.

 

I'm going to have to recheck my map of the Pacific regarding Wake and Guam. While not ideal for fleet operations, though, they, along with Midway would've still provided staging areas for further aggression.

As for the successful invasion of Midway, that would've depended largely on the success of the dive bombing and strafing done by unchallenged Japanese aircraft prior to the invasion, the bombardment by ships, and the number of troops committed to the invasion.

I will look up the book, but does it assume that Midway made no difference because we won, or does it take into account the possibility of it being a military disaster for us?

Edit: My comment about the Aleutians was that the Japanese had projected their strength that far as part of the overall operation, not that there was any real strategic value otherwise.

[Wapaloosie73]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2016/03/23/map_imagining_japanese_attack_of_the_west_coast_of_the_united_states_four.html

 

 

[Chantry]

8 hours ago, DocWard said:

 

I'm going to have to recheck my map of the Pacific regarding Wake and Guam. While not ideal for fleet operations, though, they, along with Midway would've still provided staging areas for further aggression.

As for the successful invasion of Midway, that would've depended largely on the success of the dive bombing and strafing done by unchallenged Japanese aircraft prior to the invasion, the bombardment by ships, and the number of troops committed to the invasion.

I will look up the book, but does it assume that Midway made no difference because we won, or does it take into account the possibility of it being a military disaster for us?

Edit: My comment about the Aleutians was that the Japanese had projected their strength that far as part of the overall operation, not that there was any real strategic value otherwise.

The authors feel that even a disaster at Midway would have made no significant difference in the long term outcome of the war.   Even losing all 3 carriers and half of their supporting vessels would still have left us with 3 carriers and enough supporting ships to, in theory, hold the line for the next 9-12 months when all of the Essex & Independence class carriers, the Baltimore class heavy cruisers and the Cleveland class cruisers would start arriving in the Pacific.

 

I am not an engineer, but I doubt Midway could have been built big enough to be a fleet base able to support attacks on Hawaii and the West Coast.  The depth of the lagoon seems to range from 25-50 feet in depth and 25 feet is too shallow to support capital ships and there is only 2.4 square miles of land which includes all of the islands in the atoll.

 

As to the invasion, the Japanese (per the book) had no amtracs, so infantry would have to disembark from the landing barges, climb over the coral reefs and then wade through the shallow parts, all the while under fire from Marines in fortifications of varying sizes.  The book indicates that the Japanese Navy had no established doctrine for shore bombardment either by ships or planes (I doubt we did either at that point in time).  Just look at some of the invasions of Japanese held islands and how difficult they were and the US NAVY, Marines and Army were (and still are) far more flexible and adaptable then the Japanese military showed in WWII.  The Japanese Army & Navy almost never cooperated with each other and were often at odds on how to conduct the war.

 

There was no way the Japanese could match our industrial output in terms of quantity and they were also rapidly falling behind in technological quality.  Their logistical issues only got worse as the war progressed and the US submarines started to have an impact on their merchant shipping.  Additionally they had manpower issues with millions of soldiers tied down fighting in Burma & China as well  as troops needed to guard against an attack by the Russians along the Mongolian border.

 

 

[Wapaloosie73]

How did the Japs take Wake Island? How did they land Marines at Guadalcanal? The USMC often times had to few amtracks as well. That’s what happened at Tarawa. The poor souls in the Higgins boats also waded across coral reefs under fire.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wake_Island

 

The Japanese certainly exhibited amphibious prowess. And if they had held the upper hand in the Pacific there is no way of knowing if they like us could have become even better at it.

 

There was also no way Britain could match the industrial might of Germany either. But unfortunately for Germany the English had a stronger navy and were separated from Germany by the English Channel. 

[DocWard]

32 minutes ago, Chantry said:

The authors feel that even a disaster at Midway would have made no significant difference in the long term outcome of the war.   Even losing all 3 carriers and half of their supporting vessels would still have left us with 3 carriers and enough supporting ships to, in theory, hold the line for the next 9-12 months when all of the Essex & Independence class carriers, the Baltimore class heavy cruisers and the Cleveland class cruisers would start arriving in the Pacific.

 

I am not an engineer, but I doubt Midway could have been built big enough to be a fleet base able to support attacks on Hawaii and the West Coast.  The depth of the lagoon seems to range from 25-50 feet in depth and 25 feet is too shallow to support capital ships and there is only 2.4 square miles of land which includes all of the islands in the atoll.

 

As to the invasion, the Japanese (per the book) had no amtracs, so infantry would have to disembark from the landing barges, climb over the coral reefs and then wade through the shallow parts, all the while under fire from Marines in fortifications of varying sizes.  The book indicates that the Japanese Navy had no established doctrine for shore bombardment either by ships or planes (I doubt we did either at that point in time).  Just look at some of the invasions of Japanese held islands and how difficult they were and the US NAVY, Marines and Army were (and still are) far more flexible and adaptable then the Japanese military showed in WWII.  The Japanese Army & Navy almost never cooperated with each other and were often at odds on how to conduct the war.

 

There was no way the Japanese could match our industrial output in terms of quantity and they were also rapidly falling behind in technological quality.  Their logistical issues only got worse as the war progressed and the US submarines started to have an impact on their merchant shipping.  Additionally they had manpower issues with millions of soldiers tied down fighting in Burma & China as well  as troops needed to guard against an attack by the Russians along the Mongolian border.

 

 

 

I will have to see if I can track down the book at the library. Assuming they lost one at Midway, as we actually did, our three carriers to hold the line against a minimum of four fleet carriers, joined by a fifth (Shokaku) before six months elapsed, a larger number of light carriers, the Yamato, the Musashi, which commissioned in August of 42, as well as a number of smaller vessels? If they say so. Sounds optimistic. Seems the Japanese would've been able to pick their battles, and hit hard when they did.

I'm thinking of the islands, particularly Midway as more of a forward supply depot, where fueling can take place and provisions taken on prior to the push to the larger objective. I am admittedly not a navy guy though, so the necessary details might be something I'm missing.

While I agree the Japanese Army and Navy did not cooperate well at all, lack of a doctrine doesn't seem a real issue. It is clear that the IJN had plans to bomb and strafe Midway in preparation for the invasion. Unlike many of those Japanese held islands which were mountainous and created a nightmare for our invading forces, Midway is, well... flat.

I agree that they couldn't match our industrial output. Even assuming they consolidated their gains and were to obtain the needed metal ores and oil, they still couldn't have kept up. However, they could create enough challenges to us in even getting our ships into the Pacific that we would have been fighting an uphill battle. It would have necessarily diverted resources away from the ETO, creating a true opportunity for Germany.

[J.D. Daily]

1 hour ago, DocWard said:

 

I will have to see if I can track down the book at the library. Assuming they lost one at Midway, as we actually did, our three carriers to hold the line against a minimum of four fleet carriers, joined by a fifth (Shokaku) before six months elapsed, a larger number of light carriers, the Yamato, the Musashi, which commissioned in August of 42, as well as a number of smaller vessels? If they say so. Sounds optimistic. Seems the Japanese would've been able to pick their battles, and hit hard when they did.

I'm thinking of the islands, particularly Midway as more of a forward supply depot, where fueling can take place and provisions taken on prior to the push to the larger objective. I am admittedly not a navy guy though, so the necessary details might be something I'm missing.

While I agree the Japanese Army and Navy did not cooperate well at all, lack of a doctrine doesn't seem a real issue. It is clear that the IJN had plans to bomb and strafe Midway in preparation for the invasion. Unlike many of those Japanese held islands which were mountainous and created a nightmare for our invading forces, Midway is, well... flat.

I agree that they couldn't match our industrial output. Even assuming they consolidated their gains and were to obtain the needed metal ores and oil, they still couldn't have kept up. However, they could create enough challenges to us in even getting our ships into the Pacific that we would have been fighting an uphill battle. It would have necessarily diverted resources away from the ETO, creating a true opportunity for Germany.

The Kwajelin atoll wasn't that easy to take even after both naval & air bombardment flattened all but one palm tree.  The secret to the low number of US casualties is UTD teams logging the channels between islands.  They determined the invading force troop transports could pass into the 1400 sq. mile lagoon and land troops on Kwajelin, Roy & Namor islands wo/fire from the bunkers.  The jumble of palm trees however provided excellent cover for the Japanese who ventured out of the bunkers to engage the marines.  The only bunker that was destroyed was the torpedo bunker on Roy that a marine squad used satchel charges.  All the torpedoes exploded wiping out the marines & leaving a crater where the bunker was.

[Chantry]

14 hours ago, Wapaloosie73 said:

How did the Japs take Wake Island? How did they land Marines at Guadalcanal? The USMC often times had to few amtracks as well. That’s what happened at Tarawa. The poor souls in the Higgins boats also waded across coral reefs under fire.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wake_Island

 

The Japanese certainly exhibited amphibious prowess. And if they had held the upper hand in the Pacific there is no way of knowing if they like us could have become even better at it.

 

There was also no way Britain could match the industrial might of Germany either. But unfortunately for Germany the English had a stronger navy and were separated from Germany by the English Channel. 

Wake had beaches that were not blocked by coral reefs and the Marines were outnumbered 5 to 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wake_Island  the Japanese military in WWII did not have a very good track record of amphibious landings against defended beaches.

 

The landing on Guadalcanal was unopposed and the Marines landed using Higgins boats.  The armored amtracs where used in limited numbers on Tarawa, with the bulk if the troops in Higgins boats.

 

England came much closer to matching Germany then Japan ever came to matching the U.S.  The inability of the German military to establish air superiority over the English Channel, as well as the larger Royal Navy, is why the Germans never had a chance of invading England.

 

 

[DocWard]

1 hour ago, Chantry said:

Wake had beaches that were not blocked by coral reefs and the Marines were outnumbered 5 to 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wake_Island  the Japanese military in WWII did not have a very good track record of amphibious landings against defended beaches.

 

The landing on Guadalcanal was unopposed and the Marines landed using Higgins boats.  The armored amtracs where used in limited numbers on Tarawa, with the bulk if the troops in Higgins boats.

 

England came much closer to matching Germany then Japan ever came to matching the U.S.  The inability of the German military to establish air superiority over the English Channel, as well as the larger Royal Navy, is why the Germans never had a chance of invading England.

 

 

 

The primary problem face by the Germans in the Battle of Britain, other than Hermann Goering, was attempting to accomplish a strategic mission with what was, essentially, a tactical air force. By the time the Bf 109s reached England, they had little loiter time. The 110s formed protective circles to defend themselves instead of bombers. Stukas were quickly withdrawn, and their bombers didn't have the firepower needed, nor the payload to be successful in their missions. Still, they nearly brought Fighter Command to its knees.

[Chantry]

1 hour ago, DocWard said:

 

The primary problem face by the Germans in the Battle of Britain, other than Hermann Goering, was attempting to accomplish a strategic mission with what was, essentially, a tactical air force. By the time the Bf 109s reached England, they had little loiter time. The 110s formed protective circles to defend themselves instead of bombers. Stukas were quickly withdrawn, and their bombers didn't have the firepower needed, nor the payload to be successful in their missions. Still, they nearly brought Fighter Command to its knees.

Agreed, however even with air superiority, I'm still very skeptical that the Germans could have invaded England.  Even senior German commanders said that Germany could not invade England:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion

[Sixgun Sheridan]

Germany had a shortage of effective invasion craft. Also, we should probably be glad that the US didn't have to divert resources away from fighting Germany because the Russians would for sure have done it for us, and one can only wonder if they'd have stopped when they got to the eastern shore of the Rhine.

[DocWard]

1 hour ago, Chantry said:

Agreed, however even with air superiority, I'm still very skeptical that the Germans could have invaded England.  Even senior German commanders said that Germany could not invade England:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion

 

I'm sorry, I thought that was a given. Operation Sea Lion depended on absolute air superiority. By that, I mean the ability to use bombers, particularly dive bombers to keep the Royal Navy at bay, because the Kriegsmarine was no match. Only with the use of the Stuka, along with high level bombing, could they have any hope of success in that effort. Because the Ju 87 was easy prey for the RAF, without air superiority, an invasion was impossible. Even with air superiority, it was questionable due to the lack of landing craft and other material necessary for the crossing. It is also apparent that Hitler was never fully committed to the idea, already having his eye on Operation Barbarossa.

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

What was the goal of Barbarossa? Extending the Reich to shake hands with the Japanese?

[Chantry]

2 hours ago, Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984 said:

What was the goal of Barbarossa? Extending the Reich to shake hands with the Japanese?

 The goal was "The operation stemmed from Nazi Germany's ideological aims to conquer the western Soviet Union so that it could be repopulated by Germans, to use Slavs as a slave-labour force for the Axis war-effort, and to seize the oil reserves of the Caucasus and the agricultural resources of Soviet territories."    Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa

 

I think any attempt to link up with the Japanese would have been through the Middle East and British India.  In general there would have been far more already existing usable roads and rail lines and the climate is not as bad as a Siberian winter.

 

Rommel probably could have done it if he had another 3 or 4 divisions and the supplies for them.  

[Sixgun Sheridan]

The Germans invaded Russia too late in the year, which cost them dearly by the time the fierce Russian winter hit when they were close to Moscow. It also didn't help that they treated the Slavs viciously, who at first regarded them as liberators and then quickly realized they were better off siding with the much-hated Russians. Had the Germans not done that and met resistance there's a chance they could have penetrated much deeper into Russia and possibly took Moscow.

[Father Kit Cool Gun Garth]

Getting back to the OP's thread statement, and this may seriously age me, I knew the answer from when I was a young whipper-snapper, listening to Johnny Horton sing the song about the sinking of the Bismarck.

For those that recall the song, and for those not old enough to remember, here's a stroll down memory lane.

 

 

 

 

[Widder, SASS #59054]

Now I get the BIG picture:   The Germans built the Bismarck in order for Johnny Horton to have a good song to sing..... 

 

Why didn't anyone write a song about the Yamato?

 

..........Widder

 

[Sedalia Dave]

46 minutes ago, Widder, SASS #59054 said:

Now I get the BIG picture:   The Germans built the Bismarck in order for Johnny Horton to have a good song to sing..... 

 

Why didn't anyone write a song about the Yamato?

 

..........Widder

 

 

Because Bismark kinda rolls off the tongue. Yamato not so much. 

[Sedalia Dave]

On 3/14/2018 at 9:47 PM, DocWard said:

 

Have you seen the images of the unexploded torpedo that was used and didn't detonate in the sinking of the Lexington?

 

Yep, but even with our torpedo problems we sank about 1300 merchant ships reducing their shipping capability by 75%. This crippled the IJN's ability to operate as a forward deployed force as well as their ability to resupply troops on islands all across the Pacific theater.

 

US subs also sank over 200 Warships including 3 fleet aircraft carriers and one battleship.  An unsuccessful attack on an IJN battleship  during the battle of Midway, drew a destroyer away from the main IJN battle group where it was spotted by aircraft from the USS Enterprise.  By following its return back to the main IJN battle group dive bombers were able to sink four fleet carriers.

 

[DocWard]

1 hour ago, Sedalia Dave said:

 

Yep, but even with our torpedo problems we sank about 1300 merchant ships reducing their shipping capability by 75%. This crippled the IJN's ability to operate as a forward deployed force as well as their ability to resupply troops on islands all across the Pacific theater.

 

US subs also sank over 200 Warships including 3 fleet aircraft carriers and one battleship.  An unsuccessful attack on an IJN battleship  during the battle of Midway, drew a destroyer away from the main IJN battle group where it was spotted by aircraft from the USS Enterprise.  By following its return back to the main IJN battle group dive bombers were able to sink four fleet carriers.

 

I believe I mentioned the destroyer being followed earlier. I think they only sunk three initially. The fourth later.