Japan first (and no Pearl Harbor or torpedo bug)

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Post Reply
Zart Arn
Member
Posts: 75
Joined: 24 May 2014, 00:50

Japan first (and no Pearl Harbor or torpedo bug)

#1

Post by Zart Arn » 21 Jun 2014, 23:18

I would like to draw the general attention to the following scenario: in December of 1941 Japan does start the war in the Pacific without launching the attack on Pearl Harbor. Following the Japanese offensive, the US decides to concentrate its major effort on Japan and not on Europe. The question is, how quickly Japan would have been forced into surrender? Would it have been the matter of a year, or two?

To make the matters easier, let us sum up the major points:
1. Since no Pearl Harbor raid takes place in this scenario, the US can still count upon 7 battleships sunk or damaged in the reality.
2. American torpedoes do function properly, no "torpedo bug" is in place.
3. US naval intelligence can still read Japanese communications.

These are the conditions. It's not the point of this thread to discuss if these conditions are realistic or not. The point is to see what would have happen, if all mentioned above had taken place. So, please, post your opinions.

rcocean
Member
Posts: 686
Joined: 30 Mar 2008, 01:48

Re: Japan first (and no Pearl Harbor or torpedo bug)

#2

Post by rcocean » 22 Jun 2014, 02:10

IOW, the Japanese have attacked American forces in the Philippines. Any "Japan First" strategy would've consisted of the USA helping the Aussies hold onto to Rabaul and then attacking up the coast of New Guinea and retaking the Philippines. Once that was accomplished, Japan would've been cut off from any of the oil, bauxite, tin, and rubber from SE Asia and Indonesia. No doubt we could've recaptured the Philippines in Jan- July 1943 instead of Jan-July 1945. Japan's surrender would've come soon after.


User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Japan first (and no Pearl Harbor or torpedo bug)

#3

Post by Takao » 22 Jun 2014, 02:54

The "What If" potion of the forum is located here:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewforum.php?f=11

As this is part of the historical forum, the responses that you will likely elicit will be about how unrealistic this scenario is...

1. Since no Pearl Harbor raid takes place in this scenario, the US can still count upon 7 battleships sunk or damaged in the reality.
Consider the fact that Pearl Harbor was attacked because it was a position of strength...Now, if it is not a position of strength, where has the US Pacific Fleet moved to? The Philippines? Australia? the US West Coast? The Philippines and Australia could not properly support continuing combat operations of so large a fleet, nor did the US have at the time a "fleet train" to keep them supplied. Thus, the West Coast is the only logical answer, but that is far removed from combat.

2. American torpedoes do function properly, no "torpedo bug" is in place.

For instance, there were actually three torpedo bugs: 1) They ran deeper than expected, 2) The contact exploder was a failure because the firing pin was to light and could not handle the stresses place upon it at the moment of contact, and 3) the faulty magnetic exploder which led to premature detonation or no detonation at all. Now, since you only mention "torpedo bug" - singular - which one of these three do you plan to eliminate?


Now what does a "Pacific First" strategy mean to your fantasy...realistically, not much more than a hill of beans. Major allied offensives in either theater did not begin until late 1942, and it wasn't until mid-to-late 1943 that they began in earnest. You will also note that the Central Pacific campaign did not begin until the end of 1943...Why? The US lacked the large aircraft carriers necessary for the protection of a large invasion force operating outside of land-based air cover.

So, essentially, even with a "Pacific First" strategy right from the get go, you will still be limited to a roughly historical time line. Since, the Japanese will not have two competing Pacific campaigns to guard against, this will allow them to focus on defeating the singular American push.

Of course, you also have the flip side of this coin - What does Germany do without a large American presence in the Med & Italy to contend with...For that matter how will American Allies - Britain & Russia hold up under an increased strain?

rcocean
Member
Posts: 686
Joined: 30 Mar 2008, 01:48

Re: Japan first (and no Pearl Harbor or torpedo bug)

#4

Post by rcocean » 22 Jun 2014, 03:10

Now what does a "Pacific First" strategy mean to your fantasy...realistically, not much more than a hill of beans. Major allied offensives in either theater did not begin until late 1942, and it wasn't until mid-to-late 1943 that they began in earnest. You will also note that the Central Pacific campaign did not begin until the end of 1943...Why? The US lacked the large aircraft carriers necessary for the protection of a large invasion force operating outside of land-based air cover.

So, essentially, even with a "Pacific First" strategy right from the get go, you will still be limited to a roughly historical time line. Since, the Japanese will not have two competing Pacific campaigns to guard against, this will allow them to focus on defeating the singular American push.
Wrong. Any "Japan First" strategy would've focused on holding Rabaul or failing that, recapturing Rabaul, and then working up the NG coast and then to the Philippines. None of this was based on the Aircraft Carriers, but land based air power. Secondly, the Japanese were much weaker in 1942 than in 1943-1944. If you look at the Pacific war, you'll see we did nothing offensively until June 1943 when we started up the Solomon Islands ladder to encircle Rabaul. Our recapture of Guadalcanal and Buna simply restored the status quo that existed in May 1942. This enabled the Japanese to ship troops overseas, import massive quantities of bauxite and oil, and ramp up aircraft production.
Of course, you also have the flip side of this coin - What does Germany do without a large American presence in the Med & Italy to contend with...For that matter how will American Allies - Britain & Russia hold up under an increased strain?
The Soviets would have done exactly what they did anyway, assuming we kept up the Lend lease. As for the British, our "Germany first" strategy resulted in the invasion of North Africa - a completely useless attack, since the 8th army had already defeated Rommel at El Alamain. The UK, by themselves, could've cleared Libya of Germans, and gone on to attack Sicily.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Japan first (and no Pearl Harbor or torpedo bug)

#5

Post by Takao » 22 Jun 2014, 04:06

Wrong. Any "Japan First" strategy would've focused on holding Rabaul or failing that, recapturing Rabaul, and then working up the NG coast and then to the Philippines. None of this was based on the Aircraft Carriers, but land based air power.
Are we talking about the same "retaking of the Philippines" that required the use of Halsey's Third Fleet and his Fast Carriers? Not to mention the many CVEs that were required to provide support for the troops going ashore ate Leyte...

Is this the "retaking of the Philippines" that you are saying was based on land-based air power?
Secondly, the Japanese were much weaker in 1942 than in 1943-1944.
The Japanese Navy was far stronger in 1942, than it would be in 43-44. The Japanese Army would always remain the "weak sister" after their initial success in the Pacific as they were more concerned with China, and inter-service rivalry, as well as, their pilot being untrained in navigating long distances over water kept them from being a major player in the Pacific.
The UK, by themselves, could've cleared Libya of Germans, and gone on to attack Sicily.
I am less than certain that the British, without American shipping, would have gone on to Sicily and Italy, let alone into France in June, 1944.

OpanaPointer
Financial supporter
Posts: 5643
Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Japan first (and no Pearl Harbor or torpedo bug)

#6

Post by OpanaPointer » 22 Jun 2014, 04:09

Pearl Harbor didn't change US strategy.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

steverodgers801
Member
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Aug 2011, 19:02

Re: Japan first (and no Pearl Harbor or torpedo bug)

#7

Post by steverodgers801 » 22 Jun 2014, 06:36

The problem with an advance up the New Guinea only is that it would mean the navy would be under the control of Mac and the army that was would never happen.

Zart Arn
Member
Posts: 75
Joined: 24 May 2014, 00:50

Re: Japan first (and no Pearl Harbor or torpedo bug)

#8

Post by Zart Arn » 22 Jun 2014, 10:48

I would like to thank everyone who has answered. As far as I see, there is stiil some misunderstanding regarding the major points of the scenario, so let us clear it.
1. Primarily, the real timing of the US counteroffensive in the Pacific is of no relevance here. In the reality American military planning depended on several factors. Some of them were of political and not of military or logistical nature. Our scenario eliminates all the political considerations. It's not the point of this thread to discuss how it could have occurred. The point is to see what could have taken place, once the decision to concentrate the primary attention on the Pacific theater had been made.
2. Secondarily, something has been said regarding "retaking the Philippines". I am terribly sorry, but what can make one sure, that the Philippines are actually going to be lost? Probably, the northern part of the archipelago would fall into the Japanese hands, but the Americans have both the motivation and the means to keep defending the area around Manila.
3. Thirdly, Japan does fight Britain and Holland, since it still requires oil, that can be found on Sumatra and Borneo.
4. Finally, the question has been asked, which of 3 torpedo problems are to be eliminated. The answer is: all three. American torpedoes should be as efficient, as the US military planners must have assumed them to be. Provided, they did not want to arm the Navy with weapons, that did not function.

Now, to the details.
Takao wrote:Major allied offensives in either theater did not begin until late 1942
It was the result of the joint Anglo-American decision making, which (of course) had some political and not purely military reasoning behind it. In our scenario Churchill does not have voice in deciding, where and how the US forces should strike.

Takao wrote:You will also note that the Central Pacific campaign did not begin until the end of 1943...Why? The US lacked the large aircraft carriers necessary for the protection of a large invasion force operating outside of land-based air cover.
Strangely as it may sound, the Solomon Island counteroffensive had started before these large fleet carriers became operational. Moreover, as the US Pacific fleet was gaining ground against IJN late in 1942, it was still numerically inferior to its opponent. Yes, the US was on the offensive having a weaker navy. In the proposed scenario the Americans can additionally count upon Pearl Harbor battleships, which (as it has been said) had not been put out of action. Add to these the ships sent in the reality to the Mediterranean.
So, if a numerically inferior US fleet did manage to go on a successful counteroffensive, why a numerically superior US fleet could not have done it even more efficiently?

Takao wrote:Now, if it is not a position of strength
It is still a position of strength. The point is that the Japanese do not attack every position of strength, that invites a bomb. In our scenario they just decide not to take a risk.

rcocean wrote:Any "Japan First" strategy would've focused on holding Rabaul or failing that, recapturing Rabaul,
Or on keeping a stronghold on the Philippines.

OpanaPointer wrote:Pearl Harbor didn't change US strategy.
There is a rational behind the opinion, that it did. But that will require another topic.

Zart Arn
Member
Posts: 75
Joined: 24 May 2014, 00:50

Re: Japan first (and no Pearl Harbor or torpedo bug)

#9

Post by Zart Arn » 22 Jun 2014, 10:57

Takao wrote:The "What If" potion of the forum is located here:
viewforum.php?f=11
Does that mean, that I must start there from scratch, or the forum administartor can just relocate the thread?

steverodgers801
Member
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Aug 2011, 19:02

Re: Japan first (and no Pearl Harbor or torpedo bug)

#10

Post by steverodgers801 » 22 Jun 2014, 17:40

It would still take the same amount of time to start the offense since there was a lack of not just carriers, but all ship types. A major one was a lack of oilers to refuel. An excellent book is "war plan orange" about how well US planners predicted the war with Japan

User avatar
Baltasar
Member
Posts: 4614
Joined: 21 Feb 2003, 16:56
Location: Germany

Re: Japan first (and no Pearl Harbor or torpedo bug)

#11

Post by Baltasar » 22 Jun 2014, 17:55

If the Japanese do not attack Pearl Harbour, what else would they do that causes the USA to be at war with them at the end of '41? Even if Japan still attacks Britain and the DEI, neither of these actions would be a direct threat to the USA. Nothing short of US politicians deciding that they want a war with Japan would create that situation. And then you still have to consider the time and resources required to dramatically increase the armed forces, which is somewhat hard to do without an actual war.

Zart Arn
Member
Posts: 75
Joined: 24 May 2014, 00:50

Re: Japan first (and no Pearl Harbor or torpedo bug)

#12

Post by Zart Arn » 22 Jun 2014, 21:53

Baltasar wrote:If the Japanese do not attack Pearl Harbour, what else would they do that causes the USA to be at war with them at the end of '41?
Attack the Philippines. Take notice, their time is running out: McArthur was forming a local army, that was some 10 divisions strong. As the Japanese landed on the archipelago in the reality, this force was only of a limited value. But with each passing month its capabilities increased.

steverodgers801 wrote: An excellent book is "war plan orange" about how well US planners predicted the war with Japan
Planners follow the constraints imposed by politician. "Orange plan" was not written with "Pacific first" priority in mind. Correct me, if I'm wrong.

User avatar
mescal
Member
Posts: 1415
Joined: 30 Mar 2008, 15:46
Location: France, EUR

Re: Japan first (and no Pearl Harbor or torpedo bug)

#13

Post by mescal » 22 Jun 2014, 22:28

"Orange plan" was not written with "Pacific first" priority in mind. Correct me, if I'm wrong.
Orange plan was conceived with the assumption that Japan would be the only opponent.
When a global war became probable, the "Orange" plan was replaced by the "Rainbow" plan.
Olivier

Zart Arn
Member
Posts: 75
Joined: 24 May 2014, 00:50

Re: Japan first (and no Pearl Harbor or torpedo bug)

#14

Post by Zart Arn » 22 Jun 2014, 23:05

mescal wrote:Orange plan was conceived with the assumption that Japan would be the only opponent.
Well, I'm not talking about "Orange plans" dating back to 1924. In those days battlewagons were the major tools of maritime warfare, aviation was still of a marginal value and modern combined arms tactics did not effectively exist. It was the time, when battleship ratio was the primary mean of predicting an outcome of any oceanic warfare. This ratio, though still favorable for the US, nonetheless dictated caution.
I have other plans in mind. Those of 1938-1939. These plans did envisage the war on 2 fronts. It is obvious, that the developments in aviation and the emergence of amphibious assault technics should have changed the rules of the game. Maritime warfare was no longer a party played only with heavy pieces, that required years to be built. Maritime warfare was becoming a matter of logistical flows. Flows of mass produced and perishable items, like aircraft or landing transports. In 1939 it was no longer about battleship ratio, that was only marginally in favor of the US. It was about the ratio of production flows. And here the US did enjoy the overwhelming advantage. Consequently, a hypothetical plan involving a war only with Japan, needed to have called for a robust approach. The trouble is, that we do not see any plan of that period, dealing exclusively with Japan. Hence, the caution.

OpanaPointer
Financial supporter
Posts: 5643
Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Japan first (and no Pearl Harbor or torpedo bug)

#15

Post by OpanaPointer » 23 Jun 2014, 02:02

Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

Post Reply

Return to “What if”