Chantry Posted June 7 Posted June 7 I didn't want to have the D-Day thread drift off topic so I decided to start a new thread to discuss the idea of how an US loss at Midway would have affected the course of the war in the Pacific and how it night have affected the war against Germany, including D- Day. The loss of all three US aircraft carriers would have left the US with only one fleet carrier, the USS Saratoga. I think the US would have reinforced Midway with additional troops and aircraft (and the same for Hawaii) and waited for the new production(which would have been expedited) .aircraft carriers, modern battleships, cruisers & destroyers to arrive by mid 1943 if not sooner. Japan would have lacked the resources to invade either and could not logistically supported extended operations against Hawaii or the West Coast of the USA. The US Navy in the Atlantic consisted of the 'fleet' carrier USS Ranger which was too slow & small to operate in the Pacific and aside from 3 battleships, later transferred to the Pacific, the remaining ships were primarily the pre-WWII designed destroyers ships that were better able to handle the rougher seas. The escort carriers, destroyer escorts were produced in enough numbers to support naval operations in both oceans. I think there would have been minimal impact on D-Day. It would have affected Pacific operations, probably with higher US casualties, but the end result would have been the same. 1 1 Quote
Subdeacon Joe Posted June 7 Posted June 7 (edited) 2 hours ago, Chantry said: I think there would have been minimal impact on D-Day. It would have affected Pacific operations, probably with higher US casualties, but the end result would have been the same. Agree. Would have taken maybe 2 years longer. We had 10 fleet carriers under construction in June of 1942, Plus escort carriers. along with: Battleships: 15 Cruisers: 53 Destroyers: 191 Submarines: 79 Destroyer Escorts, Minesweepers & Subchasers: 467 Per AI: 1942 LaunchesBattleships:USS Iowa (BB-61) - Launched in August 1942. She became the lead ship of her famous class of fast battleships and is currently preserved as a museum in San Diego, CA (open for tours Pacific Battleship Center).Aircraft Carriers:USS Essex (CV-9) - Launched in July 1942. The lead ship of the Essex class, which became the backbone of the fast carrier task forces in the Pacific.Destroyers:USS Fletcher (DD-445) - Launched in December 1942. The lead ship of the highly successful Fletcher-class destroyers.Escort Carriers:USS Bogue (CVE-9) - Launched in January 1942. Famous for serving as the lead ship of a class that specialized in hunting German U-boats in the Atlantic.1943 LaunchesAircraft Carriers:USS Intrepid (CV-11) - Launched in April 1943. One of the most famous Essex-class carriers of the Pacific War, now a museum in New York City (Intrepid Museum).USS Yorktown (CV-10) - Launched in January 1943. Another vital Essex-class carrier, now permanently docked as a museum in Charleston, SC (Patriots Point Naval & Maritime Museum).Battleships:USS New Jersey (BB-62) - Launched in December 1942 / commissioned early 1943. The most decorated battleship in US Navy history, preserved as a museum in Camden, NJ (Battleship New Jersey Museum).Submarines:USS Tang (SS-306) - Launched in August 1943. Highly celebrated for having one of the highest tonnage totals for sunken enemy ships in the Pacific.For a complete and comprehensive database of every US Navy ship launched during World War II, you can browse the Naval History and Heritage Command registry. Edited June 7 by Subdeacon Joe Quote
Cold Lake Kid, SASS # 51474 Posted June 7 Posted June 7 (edited) For consideration: A lot more pressure would have been on Australia and the air raids on Port Mosby and the surrounding areas would have intensified. Could Guadalcanal have been held after a Midway defeat? All the British Commonwealth countries were engaged in Europe with minimal strength in Hong Kong, which had fallen quickly. In my view, the saving graces in it all, was the distances involved, Japan's lack of natural resources, ( Japanese victories could have alleviated some of that problem), and the abundant resources and manufacturing capabilities of the United States. It would have taken longer and been far more costly, but I believe, ultimately, the end would have been the same, with more nuclear weapons being deployed. Edited June 7 by Cold Lake Kid, SASS # 51474 1 1 Quote
Trailrider #896 Posted June 7 Posted June 7 It would have depended on what we lost at Midway. Probably Midway itself would have fallen, leaving Japan with a base from which to attack Hawaii directly. Worse, our ability to keep the sealanes to Australia open would have been severely degraded, if not stopped altogether. Japan might have been able to invade Australia, at least the northern coast! Whether the Marines would have been able to hold Guadalcanal or not is uncertain. As it was, they hung on by the skin of their teeth after Savo Island and Adm. Fletcher's withdrawal of his task force. Fortunately, we won at Midway, and stopped the Japanese advance permanently, thanks to the sacrifice by the men of Torpedo 8, and quite a few of the dive bombers, most of whom are forgotten because of the success of their shipmates in destroying the four major Japanese carriers. As it was, we lost the Yorktown and the destroyer Hamman. God Bless the memory of all who fought there and elsewhere! 4 1 Quote
watab kid Posted June 8 Posted June 8 i appreciate your thinking on D- DAY we need to respect all of these events and not forget , i also have wondered on your topic tho , im not certain what impact that might have had on the inertia in the pacific but i doubt it would have influenced the war in europe as they were two separate fronts , untill the war in wurope was done and pour island campaign had progressed it was not common to have any real crossover , after the european air war was winding down morgan crossed over to the 20th air force that was the turning point to concentrate on japan , we had the resources and experienced personnel at that point , 1 Quote
Cypress Sun Posted June 8 Posted June 8 (edited) The loss of three of our four carriers at Midway would have been devastating and IMO, would have affected the war in Europe. It would have left the entire Pacific protected by one carrier which the US would have been forced to use in an attempt to prevent further Japanese expansion. They would have wasted no time taking out the Saratoga, Once the Saratoga was sunk, there would be nothing to stop them from doing most anything they wanted to do. There is a real good chance that Midway, parts of Australia, and anywhere else the Japanese wanted...including the Hawaiian Islands would have been taken. Real or imagined, American civilians already feared invasion of the west coast by the Japanese. No one was worried about Germans or Italians invading but the threat of Japanese invasion was a possibility. After the Saratoga was lost, there would probably have been an exodus of Americans leaving the west coast and headed east. I really believe that the US would have been forced to drastically reduce the number of troops and materials dedicated to the war in Europe to protect American interests both at home and in the Pacific. With the number of men and materials being cut, I believe it would have pushed back the timeline of D-Day by as much as a year. Would the Allies have won WWII. Of course we would have. The industrial might and ability of the US would have overcome the loss of the carriers, and the Pacific War may have taken a little longer, but the outcome would have still been the same. The beginning of the end for Germany began the day the German forces invaded Russia. The real question is would we have dedicated as many men and materials protecting the British instead of our own homeland and territories. I think the US would have had to come first. Edited June 8 by Cypress Sun Quote
Nickle Posted June 8 Posted June 8 Accprding to Artificial Intelligence Japan and Germany never had a chance. Remember A. I. is just repeating what people say on the net The veterans i grew up around sure never felt like victory in WW2 was inevitable. Custer (7th calvary) didnt think he could lose either. Lots of we are number one brigades get shot up. Midway was turning point. A single code breaker. Basically because something clicked in his head he broke japanese codes. Because of this one guy midway victory wouldnt have been possible. im going from memory here but a bunch of things just fell into place that made midway victory. Japanese scout plane broke down. American pilot going on a hunch about where to look for carrriers. Just the timing of the Amerocan planes getting to the Japanese carriers when the did had luck with them. Loss of American carriers at midway wpuld have been a disaster. Would have effected everything not just in pacific but in europe and around the world. Who knows. A two year delay in the war and so much could have turned out differently. So many varibles. Heck the germans and japanese might have actually started working together. Regardless if Axis still lost the war. The world would have looked different if the japs won the battle of midway. Would most likely have changed what the cold war looked like post ww2 Quote
Chantry Posted June 8 Author Posted June 8 Some response to various comments: 15 battleships? The 2 North Carolina class had been completed and were entering service; the 4 South Dakota class were all commissioning the summer of 1942'; that left 6 Iowa class, two of which were laid down but never finished; the 4 Montana class were never laid down. Unless you are referring to ships already in service as well as those being built. The invasion of Guadalcanal occurred about 3 months after Midway and would not have happened if we had lost at Midway. The Japanese lacked the troops and logistical support to invade and occupy the Hawaiian Islands much less the West Coast of the US. Given Japan's poor record and lack of specialized equipment when it comes to amphibious landings, Midway might have been held. ( Australia was managing to hold on to Port Moresby and New Guinea without significant numbers of US combat troops. Like the above Japan lacked the troops and logistical support to invade and occupy Australia and they certainly could not have done both. We probably could have kept the sea lanes open. Sadly people forget about the war in Burma and how many Japanese troops were fighting in Burma against the British India Army (14th Army). There were also a lot of Japanese troops fighting/occupying China and troops farther north facing, but not fighting the Russians. There were no USS fleet, light carriers or escort carriers at D-Day (the USS Ranger had become a training & plane transport ship), the 4 battleships were from WWI and did provide useful service in the Pacific after D-Day, but their presence would not have been required in the Pacific as they were too slow to keep up the far more modern Pacific fleet. The remaining cruisers and destroyers would not have made a difference in the Pacific war. The US had more than enough troops and equipment to fight both Japan and German at the same time. Admiral Yamamoto knew that Japan lacked the resources and industrial capacity to win the war against the US. However the Japanese Army insisted on invading the various colonies and countries in the region even though they knew the US would have no choice but to enter the war. Japan did not think the US had the resolve to fight a war and expected the US to agree to a peace treaty rather than fight (OOPS!). So while at the individual serviceman's level winning the war might not have seemed inevitable, at the senior political and military level it was just a matter of time and casualties, with the atomic bomb changing even that. 2 1 Quote
Nickle Posted June 8 Posted June 8 Wasnt the Japanese initial plan more about buying time with Pearl Harbor. Destroying the carriers at midway would have had much of the same effect. Japanese would have captured midway and turned it into a airbase. Americans without carriers would have to shift everything towards defense of west coast. They couldnt attack or try to take ground without air power. Japanes would have had time to take and fortify ground in asia. Cut off australia and taken them out of the war. Would have given japanese time to entrench. Could have turned the pacific into a never ending or a even more costly war than what it was. Loss of midway carriers would have changed european war with Soviets probably gaining more ground and probaby more german technology. Hindsight 20/20 Japan should never have attacked pearl harbor. Should have coordinated with germans. If they would have worked together and kept america out of the war. World would be different. Same with Germans attacking Soviets. But lots of varibles in war. New inventions like radar. Little things that turn into game changers like capturing german inigma codes off a german uboat and germans not knowing it. Who can say for sire how it all would have ended Quote
Cypress Sun Posted June 8 Posted June 8 56 minutes ago, Chantry said: Some response to various comments: 15 battleships? The 2 North Carolina class had been completed and were entering service; the 4 South Dakota class were all commissioning the summer of 1942'; that left 6 Iowa class, two of which were laid down but never finished; the 4 Montana class were never laid down. Unless you are referring to ships already in service as well as those being built. The invasion of Guadalcanal occurred about 3 months after Midway and would not have happened if we had lost at Midway. The Japanese lacked the troops and logistical support to invade and occupy the Hawaiian Islands much less the West Coast of the US. Given Japan's poor record and lack of specialized equipment when it comes to amphibious landings, Midway might have been held. ( Australia was managing to hold on to Port Moresby and New Guinea without significant numbers of US combat troops. Like the above Japan lacked the troops and logistical support to invade and occupy Australia and they certainly could not have done both. We probably could have kept the sea lanes open. Sadly people forget about the war in Burma and how many Japanese troops were fighting in Burma against the British India Army (14th Army). There were also a lot of Japanese troops fighting/occupying China and troops farther north facing, but not fighting the Russians. There were no USS fleet, light carriers or escort carriers at D-Day (the USS Ranger had become a training & plane transport ship), the 4 battleships were from WWI and did provide useful service in the Pacific after D-Day, but their presence would not have been required in the Pacific as they were too slow to keep up the far more modern Pacific fleet. The remaining cruisers and destroyers would not have made a difference in the Pacific war. The US had more than enough troops and equipment to fight both Japan and German at the same time. Admiral Yamamoto knew that Japan lacked the resources and industrial capacity to win the war against the US. However the Japanese Army insisted on invading the various colonies and countries in the region even though they knew the US would have no choice but to enter the war. Japan did not think the US had the resolve to fight a war and expected the US to agree to a peace treaty rather than fight (OOPS!). So while at the individual serviceman's level winning the war might not have seemed inevitable, at the senior political and military level it was just a matter of time and casualties, with the atomic bomb changing even that. As you know, aircraft carriers weren't needed for D-Day. The Allies had a big giant aircraft carrier that was unsinkable at D-Day. It is called Britian! 3 Quote
Nickle Posted June 8 Posted June 8 2 hours ago, Cypress Sun said: As you know, aircraft carriers weren't needed for D-Day. The Allies had a big giant aircraft carrier that was unsinkable at D-Day. It is called Britian! British had carriers but all three were sunk by uboats early in the war. But geograpy different. Newfoudland. Greenland. Iceland and then Britain so didnt need carriers in atlantic like needed in the pacific. Thats another point. Japanese had some submarines but they built mostly a few large complicated noisey and expensive submarines. Germans cranked out alot of smaller less expensive uboats and mostly targeted supply lines. In the pacific america had huge supply lines. Japaness could have changed outcome with uboats and german tactics. Breaking or capturing japanese and german codes was a huge advantage. 1 Quote
Forty Rod SASS 3935 Posted June 8 Posted June 8 We'll never know. Be thankful that we did win there and never had to find out. 3 1 Quote
H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619 Posted June 9 Posted June 9 Let's assume a total loss at Midway. All four carriers sunk. Midway itself invaded and taken. Damage to the Japanese fleet minimal. At worst, the loss of just one carrier. Let's say the Akagi was lost (because I can spell it) but the other three were undamaged. From a Japanese base at Midway, pretty much the rest of the Pacific is vulnerable. The remaining American fleet is (relatively) week, and would have been kept near Hawaii to defend it. But that's about all. Logistically, Japan was at the limit. The vast distance from Japan to Midway would make holding it difficult. For the same reason, an invasion of Hawaii was unrealistic, especially with all the Japanese forces tied down in the Philippines and threatening Australia. And Australia is the wild card. Without the American navy to provide support and protection, Australia very well may have been invaded. Do not know it it would fall, but the Japanese would have another six months to be very very agressive. After those six months, an all new American fleet built from the keel up floods into the Pacific. We would have ramped up construction even faster, and built even more ships. More carriers, more support vessels, maybe even all six Iowas and the Montannas. It would have been a delay, yes, but the inevitable tide would have eventually turned. There would likely have also have been a panic in the US. The Germany First strategy would have been in question. Does MacArthur make it to Australia? Without naval support, is there an Island hopping slog towards Japan? Lots of variables. All of the above is speculation and it could easily go very differently. About the only thing I CAN say for sure is, fear and panic in the US for six months. Then the newly rebuilt navy is deployed and unleashed all Hell on the enemy. 1 Quote
Colorado Coffinmaker Posted June 9 Posted June 9 Historically, the Allies plan was initially to conclude the conflict in Europe while generally containing Japan in the pacific. That plan also concluded there would not be an end in the Pacific prior to 1947. Those were decisions between the United States and Great Britain. The events at Midway changed that dynamic. Rather than just containing Japan, subsequent to Midway, full scale assault in the pacific was initiated. 1 Quote
Nickle Posted June 9 Posted June 9 4 hours ago, H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619 said: Let's assume a total loss at Midway. All four carriers sunk. Midway itself invaded and taken. Damage to the Japanese fleet minimal. At worst, the loss of just one carrier. Let's say the Akagi was lost (because I can spell it) but the other three were undamaged. From a Japanese base at Midway, pretty much the rest of the Pacific is vulnerable. The remaining American fleet is (relatively) week, and would have been kept near Hawaii to defend it. But that's about all. Logistically, Japan was at the limit. The vast distance from Japan to Midway would make holding it difficult. For the same reason, an invasion of Hawaii was unrealistic, especially with all the Japanese forces tied down in the Philippines and threatening Australia. And Australia is the wild card. Without the American navy to provide support and protection, Australia very well may have been invaded. Do not know it it would fall, but the Japanese would have another six months to be very very agressive. After those six months, an all new American fleet built from the keel up floods into the Pacific. We would have ramped up construction even faster, and built even more ships. More carriers, more support vessels, maybe even all six Iowas and the Montannas. It would have been a delay, yes, but the inevitable tide would have eventually turned. There would likely have also have been a panic in the US. The Germany First strategy would have been in question. Does MacArthur make it to Australia? Without naval support, is there an Island hopping slog towards Japan? Lots of variables. All of the above is speculation and it could easily go very differently. About the only thing I CAN say for sure is, fear and panic in the US for six months. Then the newly rebuilt navy is deployed and unleashed all Hell on the enemy. If american carriers sunk at midway it would have forced America to divert most of what it had left from atlantic and european front to the defence of hawaii and west coast of mainland America. 1 Quote
Trailrider #896 Posted June 10 Posted June 10 In an absolutely worst-case scenario, if Japan had captured Hawaii, they might not have attacked the West Coast. There is one theory that they were afraid, if they actually attacked the U.S. mainland, they would have faced whatever army we had left, plus individual citizens with a rifle behind every tree! I wonder, if they had Hawaii, if Truman would have authorized nuking Pearl Harbor! If you have nothing better to do with your time, read the book, "If The South Had Won the Civil War". Frankly, we should be more concerned about all the UFl6 and if Iran has solved the intercontinental range reentry problem! Quote
Cypress Sun Posted June 10 Posted June 10 7 hours ago, Trailrider #896 said: In an absolutely worst-case scenario, if Japan had captured Hawaii, they might not have attacked the West Coast. There is one theory that they were afraid, if they actually attacked the U.S. mainland, they would have faced whatever army we had left, plus individual citizens with a rifle behind every tree! I wonder, if they had Hawaii, if Truman would have authorized nuking Pearl Harbor! If you have nothing better to do with your time, read the book, "If The South Had Won the Civil War". Frankly, we should be more concerned about all the UFl6 and if Iran has solved the intercontinental range reentry problem! UF16? What is that? 1 Quote
Chantry Posted June 10 Author Posted June 10 I don't think there was any realistic scenario where Japan could have occupied Hawaii. They didn't have the manpower or logistics to support that. I also don't see how the war against Germany & Italy would have been significantly affected. While we certainly planned to put Germany first and fight a holding war in the Pacific, the remarkable ramping up of production and manpower made the President and Joint Chiefs realize we could successfully fight both Germany & Japan at the same time. A loss of all 3 carriers at Midway would have caused the production of the Essex class fleet carriers and the Independence class light carriers to become even more important and expedited even further. 1 Quote
Sedalia Dave Posted June 10 Posted June 10 Had Japan succeeded in Midway and destroyed our carriers. I'm betting that they would have either withdrawn or stopped further advancement and concentrated their efforts closer to home. Japan's priority would have been securing access to the natural resources of China and Australia. While further strengthening their military and shoring up the their bases. If Japan took this course of action, the US would have concentrated on the European theater and Australia would have been in a serious pickle because there wouldn't have been a reliable way to send them supplies. Japan would have been in the position to force an end to hostilities that would have given them what they wanted. Which was control of China and the Western Pacific. 1 Quote
Nickle Posted June 10 Posted June 10 31 minutes ago, Sedalia Dave said: Had Japan succeeded in Midway and destroyed our carriers. I'm betting that they would have either withdrawn or stopped further advancement and concentrated their efforts closer to home. Japan's priority would have been securing access to the natural resources of China and Australia. While further strengthening their military and shoring up the their bases. If Japan took this course of action, the US would have concentrated on the European theater and Australia would have been in a serious pickle because there wouldn't have been a reliable way to send them supplies. Japan would have been in the position to force an end to hostilities that would have given them what they wanted. Which was control of China and the Western Pacific. Why was alaskan highway built? Why was it such a huge priority? Artificial Intelligence just repeats what it reads. AI has know way of knowing if information is right or not. 1 Quote
Subdeacon Joe Posted June 10 Posted June 10 10 minutes ago, Nickle said: Artificial Intelligence just repeats what it reads. AI has know way of knowing if information is right or not. Just like 90% of people. 1 1 Quote
Nickle Posted June 10 Posted June 10 Well what im saying is that during ww2. There was a real fear of a Japanese invasion. Real or not. The fear was real. 1 Quote
Subdeacon Joe Posted June 10 Posted June 10 1 hour ago, Chantry said: I don't think there was any realistic scenario where Japan could have occupied Hawaii. They didn't have the manpower or logistics to support that. Harry Turtledove wrote a 2 book (duology?) alternative history fiction about Japan invading and taking Hawaii in December 1941. His althistory work usually has a solid factual base and he builds his stories on those in a logical manner. Giving the Japanese forces every possible advantage, including a failed hasty counter-invasion b5 America in the summer of 1942 he built a story of about 18 months. More "What Ifs" put it at 6 to 12 months. As you said, Japan couldn't have kept the occupation forces supplied. They were at the end of a 4,000 mile supply line. Every cartridge, every gallon of fuel, almost every grain of rice, would have had to be brought in by ships. My fairly uneducated guess is that they would have had the first 6 months fairly easy, but after that we would have had the forces and tactics needed to sink most of those suppy ships. Then 3 to 6 months before they wouldn't have had the ability to repel an attack by the United States. Would have been hell on the civilians. Quote
Chantry Posted June 10 Author Posted June 10 9 minutes ago, Subdeacon Joe said: Harry Turtledove wrote a 2 book (duology?) alternative history fiction about Japan invading and taking Hawaii in December 1941. His althistory work usually has a solid factual base and he builds his stories on those in a logical manner. Giving the Japanese forces every possible advantage, including a failed hasty counter-invasion b5 America in the summer of 1942 he built a story of about 18 months. More "What Ifs" put it at 6 to 12 months. As you said, Japan couldn't have kept the occupation forces supplied. They were at the end of a 4,000 mile supply line. Every cartridge, every gallon of fuel, almost every grain of rice, would have had to be brought in by ships. My fairly uneducated guess is that they would have had the first 6 months fairly easy, but after that we would have had the forces and tactics needed to sink most of those suppy ships. Then 3 to 6 months before they wouldn't have had the ability to repel an attack by the United States. Would have been hell on the civilians. I think I read those two books. I like Harry Turtledove, but I didn't find the books as well done or as plausible as some of his others. A quick search of the books has the Japanese invading Hawaii on December 8th, 1941. I just don't see the Japanese having the troops to invade Hawaii given the requirements on other fronts: China, Burma, Philippines, Dutch East Indies and the forces facing the Russians. 1 Quote
Subdeacon Joe Posted June 10 Posted June 10 17 minutes ago, Nickle said: Well what im saying is that during ww2. There was a real fear of a Japanese invasion. Real or not. The fear was real. Very real fear. Especially in light of Japanese submarines shelling several places in California and sinking a couple of ships right off our coast in December of 1941 and into 1942, and invading the Alutian Islands in June of 1942. I don't think that any American officials seriously believed that Japan would attack the American mainland, but it was a useful fiction to maintain for wartime propaganda. My gig 45 minutes ago, Subdeacon Joe said: Just like 90% of people. Was aimed at you dig at AI. Which was kind of weird because Dave, who you quoted. hadn't mentioned AI at all. Sorry, it hit my newest pet peeve..."OMYGAWD!!! It's AI!" The new "It's Photoshop!" or "It's Wikipedia!" or "It's CGI!" or "It's airbrushed!" or "It's Fox News!" or dozens of other dismissive phrases. Quote
Subdeacon Joe Posted June 10 Posted June 10 40 minutes ago, Chantry said: I think I read those two books. I like Harry Turtledove, but I didn't find the books as well done or as plausible as some of his others. A quick search of the books has the Japanese invading Hawaii on December 8th, 1941. I just don't see the Japanese having the troops to invade Hawaii given the requirements on other fronts: China, Burma, Philippines, Dutch East Indies and the forces facing the Russians. The eternal problem, "Sir! We don't have the men/fuel/munitions to do both!" It would have depended on just what the Japanese military commanders saw as the greatest danger. Smart money would have been on our west coast production capacity. Which would mean taking Hawaii as a shield. With both Hawaii and Attu in Japanese hands the US would have been hard pressed to project force into the Pacific. Ultimately it wouldn't have mattered, just made the Pacific War take longer and at a higher cost. 1 Quote
Trailrider #896 Posted June 10 Posted June 10 5 hours ago, Cypress Sun said: UF16? What is that? Uranium hexafloride U - Fl6 (can't do a 6 subscript.) Stuff is a gas, but can be concentrated still further and condensed to a solid to make a fission bomb!) If a boron compound can be injected into the tanks, boron absorbs neutrons, which would reduce the chance of the stuff going critical. That might be one way to neutralize the Uranium 235 below fissioning capability, Otherwise, we will have to physically get ahold of the canisters...if we can find all of them. 2 Quote
Nickle Posted June 10 Posted June 10 I brought up the AI because i know that everything i was saying would be going against what AI would say. I wasnt intending to make a dig at anyone. There was tons of American money and manpower put into that Alaskan highway and it was done at amazing speed and the urgency is what drove up the costs. I believe midway was turning point in the pacific war the same as d day was in europe. If midway would have been lost. I just cant see them not pulling respurces from european war to defend the west coast. I do agree that Japanese probably would have dug into asia instead of trying to attack north america but i cant see America taking a chance and leaving the west coast undefended. Especially after pearl harbor. 2 Quote
Doc Moses Posted June 10 Posted June 10 Seems like a 'realistic' alt-history would have the US losing the fight but not all the carriers Same for Japan, winning but losing a carrier or 2. The difference is that we could repair broken carriers fast: see the Yorktown after the Corral Sea. Japan had transports landed with troops so they take Midway. Now they have a resource to supply thousands of miles from everything else they are protecting. Doesn't that make Midway an albatross? Exposing their shipping and combat vessels far from home but relatively close to our home? Seems like maybe Midway would be like Guadalcanal was in real-life; Exhaust the Japanese military and their first big loss. Then the Island campaign, but maybe not the Philipines if we had to retake Midway. Don't know. I am just a former Marine and current music teacher but Japan was over exposed before Pearl Harbor. Trying to take and keep Midway seems like it would make them lose faster. I do think the fear in the US would steer more resources to the Pacific. (also rushing the loss for Japan) I think I read once that the war was 80-20 Europe-Pacific. A loss at Midway might bump things to 70-30 or 60-40. That might have effected the N Africa campaign? Sorry I am geeking out. I love Alt history 1 1 Quote
Sedalia Dave Posted June 10 Posted June 10 In my opinion, Japan's goal at Midway was to draw out America's carriers so that they could be taken out. Due to the logistics tail I doubt that Japan really thought they could take and hold Midway. Japan wanted Midway as a staging area so that they could hunt down America's carriers. Once the carriers were out of the way, There was no real reason for Japan to expend vast resources holding Midway. What everyone has forgotten so far is the US submarine fleet. With or without carriers, our subs would have made it too costly for Japan to hold Midway. Without our carriers, taking the fight to Japan would have been logistically impossible for at least a year. This would have given Japan time to secure its foothold in China, the Philippines, Indonesia, and possibly Australia. Had Japan been able to secure the necessary natural resources to build up their military and defend their holdings, getting the US to agree to a favorable peace deal was a real possibility. 1 1 Quote
Chantry Posted June 10 Author Posted June 10 4 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said: Ultimately it wouldn't have mattered, just made the Pacific War take longer and at a higher cost. Agree it wouldn't have mattered and the costs would have been higher. Not sure about the longer part as the atomic bombs would have been available at about the same time. 1 Quote
Chantry Posted June 10 Author Posted June 10 The Japanese, mostly the Army, thought they could win the war and that the US would negotiate a peace treaty within about 6 months of Pearl Harbor. Yamamoto disagreed and was put in command of the Japanese Combined Fleet and him moved on the IJN Yamato to prevent him from being assassinated. The Japanese did not think (and still don't to some degree) the same way a westerner does. Despite the war clearly lost even before we dropped the atomic bombs, there were military officers who would rather have died as a people than agree to a surrender. There was even an attempt by military officers to take Emperor Hirohito into 'protective custody' to prevent the surrender. 2 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.