Rn vs IJN (2 Viewers)

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yeah agreed of course. Especially for Kamikazes. But overall, I think the Hellcat made a bigger difference to the survival of US CVs than anything else.

Absolutely, PhilSea showed that.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Absolutely, PhilSea showed that.

Yeah. The degradation of Japanese crew quality over the previous two years had nothing to do with that.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yeah. The degradation of Japanese crew quality over the previous two years had nothing to do with that.

You'll notice that I specifically mentioned that there were many factors involved in the Japanese loss of superiority over the big blue fleet.

A least, I would have hoped you'd read that much.

 

[Greg Boeser]

So, how about we dream up a scenario, however implausible, that removed the US from consideration in Japanese warplans vis the European colonial possesions?
The Republicans run Robert Taft for president in 1940, who runs a successful non-interventionist, anti-New Deal platform, stressing that the US needs to focus on righting the floundering domestic economy, and avoid getting entangled in an unwinnable war in Europe. Pro-independence factions in the Philippines, backed by German and Japanese financing, launch a major uprising, forcing the US to abandon it's bases there. This paves the way for the Japanese to ignore their left flank to focus on rolling up the East Indies.
With no Lend Lease, Britain accepts a peace deal with Germany and Italy recognizing the fait accompli of Axis continental conquests.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Seems legit

 

[Glider]

The scary thing is that it was quite plausible at the time. Certainly the first part about not getting involved in Europe.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

So, how about we dream up a scenario, however implausible, that removed the US from consideration in Japanese warplans vis the European colonial possesions?
The Republicans run Robert Taft for president in 1940, who runs a successful non-interventionist, anti-New Deal platform, stressing that the US needs to focus on righting the floundering domestic economy, and avoid getting entangled in an unwinnable war in Europe. Pro-independence factions in the Philippines, backed by German and Japanese financing, launch a major uprising, forcing the US to abandon it's bases there. This paves the way for the Japanese to ignore their left flank to focus on rolling up the East Indies.
With no Lend Lease, Britain accepts a peace deal with Germany and Italy recognizing the fait accompli of Axis continental conquests.

We've read that too.

 

[EwenS]

But what happens in the run up to the 1940 election? For Taft to be elected as the Republican candidate for President there surely has to be a much greater isolationist attitude in the US (politicians and public) in the Primaries in early 1940 leading to the Republican National Convention in June 1940, only a few days after France fell.

And if Taft were elected as the Republican candidate, it still takes a lot to overturn FDR's landslide victory.

1940 United States presidential election - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

So things to consider.

With the US being more isolationist does FDR get his Third Neutrality Law in November 1939 that allowed "Cash & Carry" of weapons to belligerent nations? Historically there was a hiatus in deliveries between Sept & Nov.

Does he get to send "surplus" equipment and ammunition to Britain in June 1940? The prevailing political climate might mean he would feel less able to do so.

Does the "Destroyers for Bases" offer even get made? (historically the offer was made by FDR in May 1940, but initially rejected until agreement was reached at the end of Aug with the ships arriving in Britain before the end of the year).

The orders placed by Britain & France in 1938/39 kick started the US armaments industries and helped pay for new factories.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

It's quite likely that the US would have been less well prepared if they had stayed isolationist. All belligerent nations may have gone in different directions in terms of weapons development, procurement and deployment. That's why I didn't really want to wade into specific alternative historical scenarios myself, but I'm Ok if someone else wants to. I really made the point I wanted to make here. I am kind of interested in the idea of France vs Italy though... may start an alt history thread on that.

 

[don4331]

But what happens in the run up to the 1940 election? For Taft to be elected as the Republican candidate for President there surely has to be a much greater isolationist attitude in the US (politicians and public) in the Primaries in early 1940 leading to the Republican National Convention in June 1940, only a few days after France fell.

And if Taft were elected as the Republican candidate, it still takes a lot to overturn FDR's landslide victory.

1940 United States presidential election - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

So things to consider.

With the US being more isolationist does FDR get his Third Neutrality Law in November 1939 that allowed "Cash & Carry" of weapons to belligerent nations? Historically there was a hiatus in deliveries between Sept & Nov.

Does he get to send "surplus" equipment and ammunition to Britain in June 1940? The prevailing political climate might mean he would feel less able to do so.

Does the "Destroyers for Bases" offer even get made? (historically the offer was made by FDR in May 1940, but initially rejected until agreement was reached at the end of Aug with the ships arriving in Britain before the end of the year).

The orders placed by Britain & France in 1938/39 kick started the US armaments industries and helped pay for new factories.

Wouldn't just having the 22nd amendment to the US Constitution be a sufficient alternative - some Republican backbencher proposed the amendment in '38 as part of mid-terms, immediately supported by rest of part and by FDR's opponents within Democratic party, so carries. FDR can't use presidential veto without looking like dictator, so is no longer candidate.

Something rash in early '39 would then complete the change in public opinion/policy.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

FDR bent quite a few rules and played some tricks to get us into the war. That could have backfired. Or he could have gotten sick earlier than he did...

 

[Shortround6]

We have to assume a number of things.
One is that the Japanese will accept the fact that the change of 'leadership' in the US will be permanent or semi-permanent and the Japanese can ignore the US bases in the Philippines or that the US will abandon the Philippines in time for the Japanese expansion.

Of course the simplest thing for the Japanese is that the Taft administration cancels the embargo efforts on steel and other materials and never starts the oil embargo so Japan has more time to build up forces and prepare for the more gradual takeover of the South East Asia area.
Cancelling the US navy production program may be a lot harder, An awful lot of jobs involved there
All of the New Jersey class for example were ordered by Sept 9th 1940. Two were laid down in 1940, one was ordered Jan 6th 1941 and one ordered Jan 25th 1941 only 5 days after the inauguration. Now perhaps all four could have been cancelled but since the 1st one was not operational until late summer of 1943 than may not mean much. The US was building 6 of the 27-28kt 16in Battleships that were much further along and harder to cancel. Plus the numbers of cruisers, carriers and destroyers. Even an isolationist cannot totally ignore defense. He also has the congress to answer to and respond to jobs and perceived threats to the US concerns of the rest of the government.

The American build up is going to somewhat keep the pressure on the Japanese thinking.

The Japanese in 1941 were responding to several things.
1, was the increasing pressure from the US (the embargoes) for the Japanese aggression in SE Asia.
2, was the vanishing act done by the French as a colonial power in the area. French colonial forces are going to get no reinforcements/support from France due to the French defeat.
3. was the vanishing act done by the Dutch as a colonial power in the area. Dutch colonial forces are going to get little reinforcements/support (they got some from ships/forces that escaped) from Holland due to the Dutch defeat.
4. was the near vanishing act done by the British as a colonial power in the area. Many of the RN ships normally stationed in the area were fighting Germany/Italy leaving a skeleton force.

For the Japanese the Colonial powers had never been weaker and the chances of them staying weak may be in question.
If the British sue for peace with Germany that does that mean disarmament or freezing of new construction? Do the British maintain forces in England but reinforce areas in the Mid east (oil fields, Egypt ) and use India to reinforce Burma/Malaya and send back some of the Navy? What does Canada do in 1940/41.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Japan's main focus was their tempting / troubling war in China, which they were kind of stuck in.

On that level they were also previously familiar with the role of being one of the Colonial powers among many who were occupying and exploiting a weakened, fractured China which had basically been broken during the Opium Wars (1839-1860) and Boxer Rebellion (1899-1901).

The US had been kind of pushing it's way into China, ostensibly as a move against Colonialism, which led to the nine power treaty in 1922, supposedly recognizing Chinese territorial integrity but which in fact masked increasing US influence in the area. Japan started breaking this treaty due it's expanding war in the anarchic Manchurian region spreading into China proper, from the early 1930s. The US gradually moved toward backing the Kuomintang and the quasi-fascist warlord Chiang Kai-shek (who had a particular fascination for the Nazis) as a counter to Japan, but there was no guarantee that they would go this route if the Japanese hadn't hit Pearl Harbor.

The US was having some trouble with their own rather cynical colonial experiment in the Philippines and was uneasy with MacArthur's role there as kind of a Roman proconsul (he was on the payroll of the Philippines and the US at the same time) as well as many similar adventures in the Caribbean and Central America. Many in the US saw this as a threat to our own system. Democracy and colonialism can be an awkward fit, especially when your public foreign policy is supposed to be anti-colonialist.

 

[Shortround6]

The Republicans run Robert Taft for president in 1940, who runs a successful non-interventionist, anti-New Deal platform, stressing that the US needs to focus on righting the floundering domestic economy, and avoid getting entangled in an unwinnable war in Europe. Pro-independence factions in the Philippines, backed by German and Japanese financing, launch a major uprising, forcing the US to abandon it's bases there. This paves the way for the Japanese to ignore their left flank to focus on rolling up the East Indies.

Well, the navy programs of 1935 on were major employers. Selling "war stuff" to foreign governments while staying out of their wars was common enough in US history. Profit was not the same as moral superiority/indignation. US sold a lot of "stuff" to the soviet union in the late 20s and early 30s including complete steel mills.

Foreign attempts to influence US policy have not gone well. The Zimmermann telegram comes to mind. If it comes to public attention that foreign governments are backing rebels in US territories it may well backfire.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Well, the navy programs of 1935 on were major employers. Selling "war stuff" to foreign governments while staying out of their wars was common enough in US history.

Worked pretty well for Sweden and Switzerland too

Profit was not the same as moral superiority/indignation. US sold a lot of "stuff" to the soviet union in the late 20s and early 30s including complete steel mills.

And David Kotch set up their oil refineries!

Foreign attempts to influence US policy have not gone well. The Zimmermann telegram comes to mind. If it comes to public attention that foreign governments are backing rebels in US territories it may well backfire.

Agree

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Wouldn't just having the 22nd amendment to the US Constitution be a sufficient alternative - some Republican backbencher proposed the amendment in '38 as part of mid-terms, immediately supported by rest of part and by FDR's opponents within Democratic party, so carries. FDR can't use presidential veto without looking like dictator, so is no longer candidate.

Something rash in early '39 would then complete the change in public opinion/policy.

1) Presidents cannot veto amendments that have gained Constitutional approval.

2) To gain Constitutional approval, the proposed amendment must garner the acceptance of 3/4 of state legislatures, or state conventions called specifically for the purpose. The odds of it passing by Dec 41 are pretty darn small.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Yes, for reasons I've already spelled out.



Sure. But that doesn't address the cruisers. No shot is a sure thing. But I think arguing that IJN cruisers were inferior for having torpedoes that, by happenstance, missed, is -- again -- hindsightium. Had they hit, you would likely sing a different song.

The point I am making is that they didn't hit very often. Torpedoes fired by cruiser tended to be used for the coup de grace after the battle had been decided.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

And their limitations in ASW are exaggerated. They had a large fleet of destroyers with very well trained crews.

The record of Japanese destroyers in the ASW role was pathetic. Being a USN submarine was a dangerous job but it was safer than being in any other navy thanks to Japanese incompetence, The USN only lost 52 submarines in the entire war including accidents and friendly fire.. This is the lowest loss of all the major navies. THe USN did an accounting after the war and found that only 41 could be attributed to the Japanese (including mines). The destroyers where given credit for 4 of these kills with 1 shared with aircraft and 4 possibles. Giving the destroyers the benefit of the doubt gives only 9 in total. To give that low number some perspective Royal Navy's submarines sunk 38 enemy subs. RN destroyers sunk 90 submarines in the North Atlantic alone.
The Japanese destroyers also has a losing recorded against USN subs. USN subs are given sole credit for 23 destroyers. You were safer in a US sub than in a Japanese detroyer.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The point I am making is that they didn't hit very often. Torpedoes fired by cruiser tended to be used for the coup de grace after the battle had been decided.

I'm pretty sure that torps were fired by IJN before gunfire was released in most situations.

 

[Glider]

The record of Japanese destroyers in the ASW role was pathetic. Being a USN submarine was a dangerous job but it was safer than being in any other navy thanks to Japanese incompetence, The USN only lost 52 submarines in the entire war including accidents and friendly fire.. This is the lowest loss of all the major navies. THe USN did an accounting after the war and found that only 41 could be attributed to the Japanese (including mines). The destroyers where given credit for 4 of these kills with 1 shared with aircraft and 4 possibles. Giving the destroyers the benefit of the doubt gives only 9 in total. To give that low number some perspective Royal Navy's submarines sunk 38 enemy subs. RN destroyers sunk 90 submarines in the North Atlantic alone.
The Japanese destroyers also has a losing recorded against USN subs. USN subs are given sole credit for 23 destroyers. You were safer in a US sub than in a Japanese detroyer.

Its also worth remembering that their tends to be a lot of emphasis on the destroyer, when the key anti submarine vessel is the Frigate/Corvette/Sloop. Of these, the RN alone had hundreds of ships (excluding A/S Trawlers) supported by escort carriers and a significant Coastal Command. Compared to this, the IJN had next to nothing.