Groundhog Thread v. 2.0 - The most important battle of WW2

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

DerAdler:

You just made very strong points there.
 
That is true too. The Japanese literally spread themselves way to thin by taking over small islands and countries that really had no way to defend themselves. They had an extremely powerful navy and after Pearl Harbor was probably the strongest and if not only second to the British Royal Navy. (atleast until the US Navy got up and running again) They thought they could stop anyone.
 
It definitely would have delayed an American response. Hard to say how we would have recovered from it. The other important target missed at Pearl was all the fuel tanks. They were not bombed either. If they had hit those, we would have been in serious trouble. That was a bulk of the fuel for the Pacific fleet!
 
I dont think it would have changed the overall outcome but it would have made the war more difficult at first for the US. Hell without the carriers they would not have even been able to do the Doolittle raid. I think that it would have just been a slow start for the US in the pacific but in time they would have built the carriers again and the outcome would not have changed.
 
Good point to evenglider, but at the same time there were plenty of oil reserves on the Mainland and you cant forget about Alaska, though I dont know if they were drilling for oil in Alaska yet.
 
I agree, but they would have had to get it to Pearl Harbor while conserving what was left on the ships that were already in the Pacific. There was alot of oil stockpiled there and it would have taken quite an effort to build up that much under wartime conditions.
 
Yes, they would have figured it out, but it would have been a tough challenge. I dojn't think it would have changed the final outcome, but it would have prolonged it.
 
The Japanese also missed the dry docks. The loss of all three Dry docks, Oil/oil storage and carriers would have been terrible. Their goal at that time was Australia which was as reported by Mac Aurther as "wide open" the vast majority of their troops being in N. Africa at the time. Austraila was a major staging point in the Pacific. Without the carriers we could not have stopped them at Corral Sea and without the dry docks we would have been out of the battle of Midway. Without the oil both would have been diecy. The allies would not have been a threat to the Japanese for a year or more.
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
RG_Lunatic said:
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
I dont think you can say they did not take the war seriously. Maybe they did not expect the war to be as difficult as it was. But to not take a war seriously?
Click to expand...

No, they didn't take the war seriously. By that, I mean they didn't take their opponents seriously, and underestimated all beyond those which immeadiately bordered Germany.
Click to expand...

Okay now that you put it that way I will agree with you. Hitler did not take his enemies seriously. Wheather it was he believed that the so called "Arian Race" was so much better and could defeat anyone or it was because of the way he crushed the first countries he overan is no excuse. You can never underestimate your enemies. Right now we are a shining example of that here in Iraq still fighting and dieing every day against an enemy that we can not seem to figure out, because we underestimated the Iraqi's. This has been shown over and over through out history, even in the Revolutionary War. The British underestimated the Colonists. So yes I will agree with you and this was a major mistake by Hitler.

Whether this be true or not I am not sure but one reason about the economy and the standard of living rising among Germans could be the reason that is how Hitler came to power. He promised the Germans many things which won there hearts and minds. Now that still is not excuse for not bringing up the economy for the war effort he could have just taken it all away from them and used everything for the war effort but well he did not. I dont know if this a reason why but it could be an answer to it.
Click to expand...

That is exactly the answer to it. Hitler's power was bought by promising and giving the German people a better life. He was afriad if they saw that "better life" start to fade their confidence in him would faulter.

When Hitler decided to invade Russian in the Summer of 1941 (after stupidly delaying to help Mousilini in the Spring), he needed to get serious about the war effort and turn the entire German economy toward that effort. Certainly he should have done so when the USA came into the war at the start of 1942. He did not, and as a result, by 1943 the war was really lost already.

As for Iraq, I think we simply mis-undertand the Islamic culture. We assume they want what we want, and that they will embrace a Western style democracy, and that they can put aside their ethnic/relgious differences for the "greater good". I don't believe these assumptions are at all true. In the end I'm almost certain Iraq will devolve into very bloody civil war, and if this happens we will probably see civil war in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and perhaps several other Arab states.

The only way we can achieve "peace" in Iraq is by using an iron fist just like Saddam did, in which case we would become worse than Saddam's dictatorship. And even this would probably not work in the long run.

=S=

Lunatic
 
As for the carriers at Pearl Harbor... here is a very nice essay on "what if the USA lost the battle of Midway", which assumes all 3 US carriers were lost and no Japanese carriers were lost in that battle. If this had happened, it would have effectively been the same as had the Japanese got three carriers at Perl.

...
In other words, even if it had lost catastrophically at the Battle of Midway, the United States Navy still would have broken even with Japan in carriers and naval air power by about September 1943. Nine months later, by the middle of 1944, the U.S. Navy would have enjoyed a nearly two-to-one superiority in carrier aircraft capacity! Not only that, but with her newer, better aircraft designs, the U.S. Navy would have enjoyed not only a substantial numeric, but also a critical qualitative advantage as well, starting in late 1943. All this is not to say that losing the Battle of Midway would not have been a serious blow to American fortunes! For instance, the war would almost certainly have been protracted if the U.S. had been unable to mount some sort of a credible counter-stroke in the Solomons during the latter half of 1942. Without carrier-based air power of some sort there would not have been much hope of doing so, meaning that we would most likely have lost the Solomons. However, the long-term implications are clear: the United States could afford to make good losses that the Japanese simply could not. Furthermore, this comparison does not reflect the fact that the United States actually slowed down it's carrier building program in late 1944, as it became increasingly evident that there was less need for them. Had the U.S. lost at Midway, it seems likely that those additional carriers (3 Midway-class and 6 more Essex-Class CVs, plus the Saipan-class CVLs) would have been brought on line more quickly. In a macro-economic sense, then, the Battle of Midway was really a non-event. There was no need for the U.S. to seek a single, decisive battle which would 'Doom Japan' -- Japan was doomed by it's very decision to make war.
http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm
Click to expand...

It is really worth reading the whole page, I just cut and pasted the synopsis for focus.

The whole Combine Fleet site is worth reading and downloading key pages from. The Battleship comparison is very interesting and goes into increadible depth.

=S=

Lunatic
 
In 1941 the IJN had the edge on the Royal Navy (at least IMO). The only significant RN advantage was in the number of BBs and in 1941 that was a rather tedious advantage. The British had nothing to match the numbers or capabilities of the IJN and no carrier aircraft to match the Zero, Kate, or Val.

Had the Japanese destroyed the 3 Pacific carriers the war would have been prolonged but nothing really would have changed. The US still had the Atlantic Carrier force that wasn't doing a whole lot. Essex class ships would be rolling out like crazy in a relatively short time. Also, there was no way for the Japanese to invade and maintain an assault against the US (regardless of the early war fears). If the Wermacht would have had a tough time crossing the English Channel, there was no chance of the Japanese sustaining an attack clear across the Pacific.
 
In the Pacific the IJN had an advantage over the Royal Navy. In late 1941/early '42 after Pearl Harbour, Nagumo with 5 of the 6 carriers used at Pearl Harbour strode over to the CBI and gave the Royal Navy hell. All they had on their carriers were Swordfish, although the IJN did pull away and go back on to bothering the USN some months after the RN were in tatters.
Although, 11 Sqn. Blenheims did manage to get a few hits on the Akagi (Nagumos flagship) little else was done against the IJN. It took Britain (and most of the world) to get their heads around how good the Japanese and Germans were. They were underestimated, and that's where the initial shock came from. Once the Western Allies started to think, economy brought into play...Germany and Japan had no real chance (talking around 1943 here). How can you beat the economy of the British Empire, the US and Soviet Union combined?
 
I agree with the underestimation. I think that, the Americans anyway, most underestimated the Japanese. There was alot of ignorance about the Japanese people and culture (Sound familiar? Have we learned anything?). Because of this, alot of the higher brass were in for some surprises and a rude awakening. Fortunately, once they did get it, they were able to counter the Japanese.

How can you beat the economy of the British Empire, the US and Soviet Union combined?[\i]

Excellent point!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

P
Photograph of H V F Archer 1287321 RAF
Replies
0
Views
384
Peter C
P
M
The D-Day Naval Gun Battle
Replies
0
Views
700
MIflyer
M
A
Long term viability of the USA's warship museum ships?
Replies
13
Views
626
GreenKnight121
GreenKnight121
Dronescapes
From WW2 Bachem's Ba 349 Natter (Viper), to the cold war
Replies
1
Views
415
Gnomey
Gnomey
J
Help with the WW2 Japanese flag translation
Replies
7
Views
821
Wurger
Wurger
Back