Dec.7'41: A Day That Nobody Bombed Panama !

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Locked
User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Dec.7'41: A Day That Nobody Bombed Panama !

#331

Post by phylo_roadking » 06 Feb 2009, 16:46

Were Japanese merchants barred from the canal?
Yes. On...
July 5th 1941 - Franklin Roosevelt orders the Panama Canal closed to the Merchant Marine Fleet of the Empire of Japan, forcing Japanese vessels to make a seven-thousand mile detour around South America....
Unfortunately, events after the Suez Crisis, and Zeebruge in WWI indicate that blockships are NOT as useful as you would assume; the U-Boats at Bruges were not blocked in and were exiting at high tide within a couple of days. At Suez in November 1956, several dozen ships were sunk by the Egyptians in the Canal, and were cleared in the space of a month in April 1957.

Meanwhile - the U.S. security arrangements for checking vessels were introduced as early as September 1939, and seem to have been beefed up even further after the summer of 1941...

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Dec.7'41: A Day That Nobody Bombed Panama !

#332

Post by Sid Guttridge » 06 Feb 2009, 20:34

Hi Phylo,

You write "you'd be amazed at the paucity of certain sources". Really? What gives you that idea? Please do not assume superior knowledge where it is unlikely you have any. Stick to the facts.

You write: "but there WAS an air mail strip - for the "service" referred to in two sources seems to have been an air mail route rather than a passenger one". Really? Maybe there was, maybe there wasn't, but just because you keep affirming there was doesn't mean it is so. I have asked before and I will ask again - what is your source? Or two if you prefer. (How many times over the years have I had to ask you that?)

You are putting contemporary journalism in Time up as a reliable alternative source? Time is flooding the net with old stories, none of which have been modified in the light of subsequent knowledge. (The Bermuda Triangle legend was built on precisely this sort of sloppy use of journalistic sources - See Bermuda Triangle - Mystery Solved) This is precisely what I mean about lazy internet use instead of serious research. (And yes, I knew about the Time story (stories actually), but chose not to use it because Burden is a heavier weight source with more gravitas.)

You write, "if we had worked from JUST the "official history" on the defence of the Caribbean we'd STILL be working on the basis of only THREE airfields IN TOTAL in Panama and the Canal Zone...". Really? Which official history is that?

The absence of an available history of Panagra is evidence for nothing.

Indeed, I would not expect you to go to Panama to look at architectural drawings. But if you don't, how can you presume authority in what you write on that subject? What, exactly, is the value of a consciously uninformed opinion? Just because one posts with apparent authority doesn't mean one's post is authoritative.

For reasons unclear you address the following to me: "The taking of photographs or other views of permanent works of defence [sic] will not be permitted." Is this some sort of significant revelation? This is a truism that applies to the Maginot Line, the Siegfried Line and pretty much any permanent works of defence built anywhere in the 20th Century.

Thank you for repeating my earlier point about the Panama Canal being closed to Japanese shipping from July 1941 and the US being on guard against the Japanese. One can never restate hard facts too often.

You write: "Remember that in the international community, The Empire of Japan was regarded as a "belligerent nation" after its occupation of Neutral French Indo-China." What "international community"? The League of Nations?

Robdab was right to focus on Argentina as the possible weak link in Hemispheric solidarity. Argentina alone pursued a genuinely neutral policy free of US influence during WWII. However, I do not think it would have been interested in Mavises for the reasons stated earlier.

Belligerent vessels (essentially British and Commonwealth) were regularly in South American ports over 1939-41, sometimes on agreed courtesy calls and sometimes to repair battle damage. Belligerence was not of itself a bar to the continent's ports.

Cheers,

Sid.
Last edited by Sid Guttridge on 06 Feb 2009, 20:54, edited 1 time in total.


glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Dec.7'41: A Day That Nobody Bombed Panama !

#333

Post by glenn239 » 06 Feb 2009, 20:49

Rob – what’s the width and depth of the canal running between Panama and Gorgoua? Also, how rough is the terrain along the canal, both side, end to end? Can motorized vehicles like a tank access the whole length of it cross country?

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Dec.7'41: A Day That Nobody Bombed Panama !

#334

Post by phylo_roadking » 06 Feb 2009, 21:10

"you'd be amazed at the paucity of certain sources". Really? What gives you that idea? Please do not assume superior knowledge where it is unlikely you have any. Stick to the facts
And apart from YOUR opinions, where's the further evidence on the Anti aircraft defences of the Canal Zone, for instance?
Really? Maybe there was, maybe there wasn't, but just because you keep affirming there was doesn't mean it is so. I have asked before and I will ask again - what is your source? Or two if you prefer. (How many times over the years have I had to ask you that?)
Here's a clue; it's in one of the sources ALREADY mentioned in this thread. I can't help it if you didn't find it...
You are putting contemporary journalism in Time up as a reliable alternative source? Time is flooding the net with old stories, none of which have been modified in the light of subsequent knowledge.
Frankly, Sid - it doesn't matter if it has been updated or not. If a journalist for example says he has been in the Canal Zone and been chatting to the U.S. personnel on station, do we automatically assume he's lying because his story of 60+ years ago hasn't been modified??? I don't think so. It's a CONTEMPORARY story from a contemporary source, and so has as MUCH relevance as anything else in this thread. Probably considerably MORE than some, given that it corroborates Akiyama's transmission to Tokyo...
The absence of an available history of Panagra is evidence for nothing
Quite right; and I never said it was. if you don't value the additional historical anecdote, that's nothing to do with me.
Indeed, I would not expect you to go to Panama to look at architectural drawings. But if you don't, how can you presume authority in what you write on that subject? What, exactly, is the value of an uninformed opinion? Just because one posts with apparent authority doesn't mean one's post is authoritative.
And exactly what architectural features of the Canal Zone have I pretended knowledge and authority on? I haven't posted with apparent authority on ANYTHING I haven't been able to find and subsequently direct people to. What I WAS doing was dealing with the issue of Robert's authoritative assumption that because AA defences couldn't be found BY HIM, they weren't there. Quite staggering claims were, for instance, made that the Gatun Dam was not guarded; the evidence was presented that not only WAS it...but the Japanese' own head of intelligence in Panama told them so. I don't need to pretend authority when presented with evidence like THAT.

(I could for example tell him where he might find out a LOT more about AA defences in the Canal Zone than he presently knows, but I'm more concerned at the original oversight...)
For reasons unclear you address the following to me: "The taking of photographs or other views of permanent works of defence [sic] will not be permitted." Is this some sort of significant revelation? This is a truism that applies to the Maginot Line, the Siegfried Line and pretty much any permanent works of defence built anywhere in the 20th Century.
Of course it is a truism; and given that the military reservation of the Canal Zone was twenty miles across, it's equally true that we don't have much in the way of pics of ANYTHING that the U.S. Army didn't want photographed. Robert's assumption is - because he couldn't find information and pics, X didn't exist. I believe YOU are the one normally preaching that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...."
Thank you for repeating my earlier point about the Panama Canal being closed to Japanese shipping from July 1941 and the US being on guard against the Japanese. One can never restate hard facts too often.
My pleasure; it was just that noone seemed to have paid it very much attention when you posted it earlier.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Dec.7'41: A Day That Nobody Bombed Panama !

#335

Post by phylo_roadking » 06 Feb 2009, 21:39

Incidently - when DID the first U.S. surface unit pass through the Canal after Pearl Harbour from the Atlantic to the Pacific?

I have a very detailed chronolgy of USN operations and movements in the Atlantic and Pacific for the years 1939-45, but transits of the Canal are sadly not mentioned.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

Re: Dec.7'41: A Day That Nobody Bombed Panama !

#336

Post by David Thompson » 07 Feb 2009, 00:33

Five posts from moab76, containing insulting personal comments about another poster, were removed by this moderator. We don't permit that kind of thing here. -- DT.

Gentlemen -- Argue the premise and avoid offensive comments about each other.

User avatar
Simon K
Member
Posts: 1425
Joined: 19 Jul 2008, 20:25
Location: London U.K

Re: Dec.7'41: A Day That Nobody Bombed Panama !

#337

Post by Simon K » 07 Feb 2009, 03:05

Phylo a too generous comparison with the Suez Canal, in terms of a block ship efficiency model, is out, because the relative dimensions of the two are different. The PC is much narrower than the SC. I need to develop this point. But it is then arguable for a much more difficult salvage operation envolving more time.
I too would be interested in ATL major U.S. fleet units through the PC in the first three months of the war.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Dec.7'41: A Day That Nobody Bombed Panama !

#338

Post by phylo_roadking » 07 Feb 2009, 03:55

Yes, but to get a ship that refuses inspection or contact past the defences at Fort Amador and Fort Kobbe etc. would be VERY problematic...given that THAT is exactly the sort of situation they were there to prevent! :lol:

Take a look here - http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/J ... %20big.jpg

The three islands at the end of the causeway you can see are Naos Island and the others with guns as per my description above. And you can see the relative positions of Fort Kobbe and Fort Amador. As you can see, ANY blockship has to get past ALL those AND several miles more past them to find the channel narrow enough to block. And that's not taking into account any of the USN force at the Pacific end of the Canal intercepting - light in numbers but enough to stop them.

If you look at the Zeebruge Raid, it was indeed shore fire...and much lighter in calibre than in the Canal Zone!...that stopped the third blockship being placed properly.
Last edited by phylo_roadking on 07 Feb 2009, 04:33, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Dec.7'41: A Day That Nobody Bombed Panama !

#339

Post by phylo_roadking » 07 Feb 2009, 04:11

I too would be interested in ATL major U.S. fleet units through the PC in the first three months of the war.
The first U.S. surface units to pass through the Canal were Yorktown, Sims, Russell, and Hughes; they departed Norfolk on the 16th of December, transited the Canal and arrived at San Diego 30 December. Yorktown transited "a week later", which makes it on the 22nd or 23rd...

THIS means a Japanese infiltration force would need to be in place BEFORE the war alert at the end of November...which has them in Panama for nearly a MONTH before they have a suitable target...and over a fortnight at full wartime security levels 8O They're going to be everso hungry...let alone not give themselves away OR be found.
Belligerent vessels (essentially British and Commonwealth) were regularly in South American ports over 1939-41, sometimes on agreed courtesy calls and sometimes to repair battle damage. Belligerence was not of itself a bar to the continent's ports.
I note your emphasis. I wonder if they in ports belonging to any of the signatories of the Declaration of Panama? :wink: The Declaration of 1939 allows the member nations to refuse access to their ports i.e. pick and choose who visits and who doesn't...depending on THEIR (the signatories) view of belligerency :wink:

Regarding Argentina...last time I looked, Argentina's ocean facing was on the Atlantic side of the continent. Only a minor point of course, but it DOES mean that the reported presence of a Japanese naval vessel can be tracked for a LONG time. And I don't believe the captain of the Chitose with it's lashed-down flying boats and newly top-heavy superstructure would be interested in "rounding the Horn" :lol: :lol: :lol:
You write: "Remember that in the international community, The Empire of Japan was regarded as a "belligerent nation" after its occupation of Neutral French Indo-China." What "international community"? The League of Nations?
By the U.S. and the signatories of the Declaration of Panama at least. And That's enough to restrict access to Pacific-facing ports :wink:

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Dec.7'41: A Day That Nobody Bombed Panama !

#340

Post by Sid Guttridge » 07 Feb 2009, 13:31

Hi Phylo,

A good starting point for the "Anti aircraft defences of the Canal Zone" is Shelby Stanton's Order of Battle, US Army, World War II. I know you are reluctant to exert yourself beyond the internet, but it is available through inter-library loan for about £2.50. It contains an enormous number of other goodies as well.

I don't think "Here's a clue; it's in one of the sources ALREADY mentioned in this thread. I can't help it if you didn't find it..." is very helpful, do you? If you have two sources, please give them instead of acting like a tease. Why is it always such a nightmare to drag sources out of you? I would remind you of the Bismarck/Catalina thread, where I had to wade through primary documentation in the National Archives to correct something you had claimed but failed to provide a verifiable source for. And that is just one of many over the years.

I have looked into this subject area long before this thread and found no reference to any Ecuadoran or Panagra airfield on the Galapagos in 1941 or earlier. However, it is not impossible, so I would like to know what your sources are so that I may check them.

Who said anything about Time journalists lying? Not me. My point is that journalistic standards of evidence are not up to those of historians. The writers are not necessarily experts in their subjects, have limited sources, deadlines to meet and copy space to fill. In this particular case, Time is simply reissuing its old stories on the internet without any modification whatsoever.

Do you really feel that it doesn't matter if facts are updated or not? So if something was wrong when published it retains validity in your mind? Is that really the standard of evidence you accept? (I have the same problem with the cheap reissues of wartime Jane's Fighting Ships, which were subject to censorship and lack of information at the time. Why don't more libraries invest in Conway's more recent volumes on warships not victim of similar constraints?)

If you could tell Robert "where he might find out a LOT more about AA defences in the Canal Zone than he presently knows", why on earth not just get on with it? I know he is an ungracious fellow, but what are you on this thread for if not to impart useful information? I am sure you are very clever, but why all this coquettishness? There may be others who would be interested.

You "wonder if they (entered) in ports belonging to any of the signatories of the Declaration of Panama?" If I am not mistaken, all the independent republics of the Americas were signatories to the Declaration of Panama, and those of Havana and Rio that followed it. If so, the answer is necessarily "Yes".

You write, "The Declaration of 1939 allows the member nations to refuse access to their ports i.e. pick and choose who visits and who doesn't...depending on THEIR (the signatories) view of belligerency...." So there wasn't, therefore, an international position on Japan's belligerency that would have prevented visits by it warships to Latin American ports. Again, if memory serves me correctly, Argentina didn't declare a state of belligerency with Japan until March 1945 - well outside our time frame here.

Cheers,

Sid.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Dec.7'41: A Day That Nobody Bombed Panama !

#341

Post by phylo_roadking » 07 Feb 2009, 16:09

Who said anything about Time journalists lying? Not me. My point is that journalistic standards of evidence are not up to those of historians. The writers are not necessarily experts in their subjects, have limited sources, deadlines to meet and copy space to fill. In this particular case, Time is simply reissuing its old stories on the internet without any modification whatsoever.
Sid, they are "period" sources and should be read in context. Which it WAS done in this case - the context of confirming that the edges of the Lake at the very least were defended, AND as I said coorroborating the MAGIC decrypt of Akiyama's report to Tokyo. If a journalist says he was actually at gatun lake and talked to U.S. Army personnel both manning and servicing posts in the hills surrounding the lake - there is absolutely no reason to assume he was NOT there, no matter WHAT his constraints as to time to file copy, column inches to fill etc. Frankly it is EXTREMELY fatuous to demand that a newspaper archive should update its CONTEMPORARY articles with modern knowledge when the articles are there for use in context.
Do you really feel that it doesn't matter if facts are updated or not? So if something was wrong when published it retains validity in your mind? Is that really the standard of evidence you accept?
It retains the validity it had on date of publication, i.e.in context. In the case of this article we had a poster saying the Dam and lake wasn't defended - NOW we have
1/ a journalistic source saying they were;
2/ A Japanese intelligence head-of-station saying they were;
3/ a picture of the actual Dam with a guard on it!

I would question YOUR standards if you can't see the degree of corroboration provided against the original poster's "nil result" position.
If you could tell Robert "where he might find out a LOT more about AA defences in the Canal Zone than he presently knows", why on earth not just get on with it? I know he is an ungracious fellow, but what are you on this thread for if not to impart useful information? I am sure you are very clever, but why all this coquettishness? There may be others who would be interested.
And a couple that have expressed an interest have been told. It's an offline source I don't have access to. But I'm rather concerned ROBERT hasn't asked...as he appears to have had access to the repository and plans to again...
You "wonder if they (entered) in ports belonging to any of the signatories of the Declaration of Panama?" If I am not mistaken, all the independent republics of the Americas were signatories to the Declaration of Panama, and those of Havana and Rio that followed it. If so, the answer is necessarily "Yes".
Actually. Sid...I think reference to an RN chronology of ships' movements would provide the information rather than assuming "the answer is necessarily "Yes"", don't you?
You write, "The Declaration of 1939 allows the member nations to refuse access to their ports i.e. pick and choose who visits and who doesn't...depending on THEIR (the signatories) view of belligerency...." So there wasn't, therefore, an international position on Japan's belligerency that would have prevented visits by it warships to Latin American ports.
It was the position the members of the Declaration of Panama and the U.S.A. took on Japan that would have prevented visits. Which would close off the entire pacific seaboard. I somehow don't think the position of various small Neutral African nations is relevant to this thread. And given that we're talking about PACIFIC actions on the part of the IJN - I don't think that Argentina has much relevance either. As I indicated, the Chitose would have extreme difficulties round Cpae Horn twice - back and forth - and retaining her "deck cargo"...

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Dec.7'41: A Day That Nobody Bombed Panama !

#342

Post by glenn239 » 07 Feb 2009, 18:48

THIS means a Japanese infiltration force would need to be in place BEFORE the war alert at the end of November...
Why?

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Dec.7'41: A Day That Nobody Bombed Panama !

#343

Post by phylo_roadking » 07 Feb 2009, 19:58

AFTER the war alert, the garrison of the Canal Zone AND the USN patrolling the coast of Panama by air and sea would have been on full alert and in their wartime positions. An attempt to land an infiltration force with enough supplies to last UNTIL a target-of-opportunity appears, AND with enough demolition munitions to damage that will take a considerable time to land...

As for the Canal Zone itself, as you've been told there was more than 20,000 men in the garrison on the eve of war - in a military reservation of only some 543 square miles 8O That's a density of some 40 men per square mile...and that's ONLY the Army's forces, and doesn't take into account the 11,000 USAAF personnel in the Zone and Panama, or the Navy's manpower. AND it spiralled up quickly after the outbreak of war; IIRC another 1,000 troops were brought in in less than five days, and extra aircraft flown in from the USA.

After the 7th of December, all the Americans in the Canal Zone will be waiting for enemy action, expecting it; IIRC the general fear of attack didn't fade until May/June 1942. Any attacker needs to be in place BEFORE that level of alert readiness.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Dec.7'41: A Day That Nobody Bombed Panama !

#344

Post by glenn239 » 07 Feb 2009, 23:24

An attempt to land an infiltration force with enough supplies to last UNTIL a target-of-opportunity appears, AND with enough demolition munitions to damage that will take a considerable time to land..
The operational details look questionable, so the logistics are moot.
As for the Canal Zone itself, as you've been told there was more than 20,000 men in the garrison on the eve of war - in a military reservation of only some 543 square miles
Airpower and seapower define where a landing force would have to debark. I’m assuming that the Gulf of Panama is patrolled and that the USAAF has single engine aircraft at Balboa that can interdict anything in the Gulf. Landing east of the Canal Chiman or La Palma looks impossible because a ship has to sail across the Gulf of Panama before turning north, and even then the terrain looks too difficult, with the main highway well inland. Further down the coast, at the Columbian border, the distance to the road is further, and the approach to Panama is long.

In the west, the coastal road hugs the Paciifc side west of the Peninsula de Azuero. So, if there is an operational possibility, it is to land somewhere between David and Remedios in southwest Panama, and then advance by truck and armor to the vicinity of Penonome (50 miles west of the Canal). From there, either in the direction of La Charrera, or north across the mountains. Looks like a difficult approach march of about 175 miles that would have to move quickly or risk being blocked..

So questions are -

What are the air and sea defences there, in the Gulf of Chiriqui? Are there US warships or an airbase?
What are the roads like between west Panama and Balboa?
What were the Panama defence command’s planning provisions if a force landed in western Panama near David and approached the Canal via the coastal road? Would it throw out a blocking force into Panama immediately, or was it confined to the Canal Zone until Panama and Washington reached an agreement? Was there a public agreement that Japan would have known about?
Is it possible to march over the mountains of central Panama, or is a force stuck on the south coast?
Did Panama have an army, navy or air force?

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Dec.7'41: A Day That Nobody Bombed Panama !

#345

Post by phylo_roadking » 08 Feb 2009, 00:11

So questions are -

What are the air and sea defences there, in the Gulf of Chiriqui? Are there US warships or an airbase?
What are the roads like between west Panama and Balboa?
What were the Panama defence command’s planning provisions if a force landed in western Panama near David and approached the Canal via the coastal road? Would it throw out a blocking force into Panama immediately, or was it confined to the Canal Zone until Panama and Washington reached an agreement? Was there a public agreement that Japan would have known about?
Is it possible to march over the mountains of central Panama, or is a force stuck on the south coast?
Did Panama have an army, navy or air force?
Glenn, a large number of THOSE are also moot; after the death of President Arias and his replacement by President De la Guardia in mid 1941, the U.S. government was given permission by the Panamanians to lease one hundred and forty three extra sites for installations in the rest of Panama. Hence the growth of the large number of auxiliary depots, landing fields, coastal installations etc. The Japanese - or at lease Akiyama with his resources - would almost certainly have known about this change in stance, and the suddent growth of the Department's responsibilities beyond the boundaries of the Zone...incidnetly leading to the growing of Rio Hato into a full AAF depot and other developments that would have been hard NOT to know about! And as far as I can see, this change in stance and the Pan-American Security Zone provisions - the "meat" behind the Declaration of Panama - meant that there wouldn't need to be any subsequent arrangement between the Department and the government of Panama before U.S. forces were deployed...

...because as for the "army of Panama"...Panama's first army was formed in 1903, when the commander of a brigade of the Colombian army defected to the pro-independence side during Panama's fight for independence. His brigade became the Panamanian army. However - in 1904, the Army THEN tried to overthrow the government, but failed. The United States persuaded Panama that a standing army could threaten the security of the Panama Canal Zone. Instead, the country set up a "National Police." For 48 years, this was the only armed force in Panama belonging to the Panamanians; the U.S. was responsible for military affairs :wink:
and then advance by truck and armor to the vicinity of Penonome (50 miles west of the Canal).
Glenn, you ARE aware that the general idea of "infiltration" means "to pass surreptitiously into enemy-held territory", "to enter or take up positions in gradually or surreptitiously" - note the word SURREPTITIOUSLY....and NOW you're suggesting the Japanese land trucks and ARMOUR??? How??? How exactly do you expect the Japanese to land EITHER trucks OR armour on a technically-hostile coast under war alert without the aid of a quayside??? And without someone ANYONE lifting a phone or simply running away yelling at the top of their lungs??? Armour tends also to be noisy. You might as well be waving a flag saying "We're here"....

This idea had a LITTLE merit when it rested with the level of "infiltration" - ALL that mattered was resolving how on earth enough men to CARRY enough explosives and supplies to do any damage to a potential target and to be able to survive until a target presented itself could actually LAND unseen close enough to the Canal yet outside ANY possible defences AND manage to get as far as the Canal without being rumbled by somebody...but a FULL military expedition of ANY size is EXACTLY the reason the U.S. HAD 21,000 men, motorised arty, Air Force bombers etc. in the Canal Zone! 8O

Why don't YOU go now and find out how long it actually took to disembark similar forces in Malaya in late 1941...certainly DAYS plural. AND apart from anything else you'll find out the British knew quite a lot about when, where, and by what ships, they just made different (and untimately unsuitable) plans to deal with them. And remember in THIS case the whole length of the coast of Panama was patrolled by the Pacific Coast squadron, and patrolled by the USN's PBYs. How are you planning for your Japanese forces to seize heavy landing facilties without ANYONE reporting it? How are you planning for the vessels necessary for carrying this level of force to actually enter patrolled coastal waters without being noticed...how are you planning that they deal with the situation when challenged or inspection is demanded? Hiding explosives in the bilges of a merchantman - one of the things the Americans wWERE worried about - is ONE thing...where do you intend them to hide a TANK??? 8O :lol:

"I'm sorry, they're actually four thousand fishermen of Japanese origin all heading to Panama in the hold of one cargo ship, Officer - and yes, those may LOOK like Japanese military uniforms, but....oh, you mean THOSE rifles?" isn't going to work.

This WI started out with simply a badly-researched and assumption-heavy idea that MERELY fell apart on every single level; NOW it's morphing into a suggested military expedition in the face of defences, thirty years of plans and exercises, and a sizeable ground force...all specifically there to PREVENT a military expedition marching on the Canal!

And finally - you expect them to be able to land HERE...

Image

...and drive half the length of the country to the Canal - and NOT meet the U.S. Army coming in the other direction??? 8O

Locked

Return to “What if”