Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
ljadw
Member
Posts: 13122
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by ljadw » 29 Jun 2022 18:27

Takao wrote:
29 Jun 2022 14:32
ljadw wrote:
29 Jun 2022 14:12
Takao wrote:
29 Jun 2022 11:16
ljadw wrote:
27 Jun 2022 20:32
In an alliance with the US Japan would be only a satellite .
Better to be the right hand of a god then trampled under his feet.
Not for the samurai with their bushido doctrine : honor was more important than death . A glorious death meant honor .It was better to die than to give up honor .
There were no Samurai in 1940, having been long ago dissolved.

Further, given the tread title, becoming a US satellite is the best outcome for Japan with hindsight.
The Samurai doctrine still dominated Japan in 1940 . In 1912 the emperor Meiji died and his favorite general, Nogi, committed suicide .
And, it is not on us,who are not Japanese,to decide,using the hindsight tric, what would be the best outcome for Japan .If the opinion of the Japanese was that it was better that they would die with honor than to surrender with dishonor,we must accept it .If there was an invasion,Japan would sacrifice 20 million'' civilians.''
As Richard R .Frank said :There are no civilians in Japan .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 13122
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by ljadw » 29 Jun 2022 18:35

OpanaPointer wrote:
29 Jun 2022 14:26
The maniacal samurai were a minority. Helping the moderates might have tipped the scales in their favor. (No guarantees, of course.)
The 'moderates '' supported the attack on PH .
And the ''moderate '' Konoye committed suicide after the war .

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3603
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by Takao » 29 Jun 2022 18:49

glenn239 wrote:
29 Jun 2022 17:22
Takao wrote:
29 Jun 2022 00:29
I missed the part where the Japanese Alien Space Bats took Vladivostok.
Who cares what you missed?

The question was why would the Americans send military aid to Japanese occupied Vladivostok.
When? and How? Do the Japanese take Vladivostok?
Again...Alien Space Bats or Space Battleship Yamato?

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 5013
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by OpanaPointer » 29 Jun 2022 19:10

ljadw wrote:
29 Jun 2022 18:35
OpanaPointer wrote:
29 Jun 2022 14:26
The maniacal samurai were a minority. Helping the moderates might have tipped the scales in their favor. (No guarantees, of course.)
The 'moderates '' supported the attack on PH .
And the ''moderate '' Konoye committed suicide after the war .
下克上
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3603
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by Takao » 29 Jun 2022 19:50

ljadw wrote:
29 Jun 2022 18:35
The 'moderates '' supported the attack on PH .
And the ''moderate '' Konoye committed suicide after the war .
If they supported the attack on PH, then they were not "moderates."

Konoye was not a "moderate". He committed suicide to avoid being tried as a war criminal.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 13122
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by ljadw » 29 Jun 2022 20:21

Konoye was replaced before PH by Tojo.Thus it is very questionable to claim that he was a war criminal .
Besides on November 29 1941 during a meeting of all former PM's with the emperor, Konoye still voiced his opposition against the attack on PH .
On November 28 ,a week before the war .

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3603
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by Takao » 29 Jun 2022 20:41

ljadw wrote:
29 Jun 2022 20:21
Konoye was replaced before PH by Tojo.Thus it is very questionable to claim that he was a war criminal .
You really do not know anything about this do you?
HINT - The war, for the Japanese & Chinese did not begin on December 7, 1941. Take a look at His actions as Prime Minister 1937-39, and you will be enlightened. Thus, it is most certain to claim that he was a war criminal.

ljadw wrote:
29 Jun 2022 20:21
Besides on November 29 1941 during a meeting of all former PM's with the emperor, Konoye still voiced his opposition against the attack on PH .
On November 28 ,a week before the war .
Odd, previously you had said the moderates supported PH, now you are saying the moderates did not support PH.
Which one is it?

Or is it that Japanese moderates prefer beating up lesser countries that cannot adequately defend themselves over attacking more powerful countries that can.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5586
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 01:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by glenn239 » 30 Jun 2022 01:13

Takao wrote:
29 Jun 2022 18:49
When? and How? Do the Japanese take Vladivostok?
Again...Alien Space Bats or Space Battleship Yamato?
This is a good general background,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantokuen

The Soviet problem is the Trans-Siberian Railway. With Japanese air superiority and the way that the line passes around the Japanese salient in Manchuria, the Soviets will not have reliable communications. Between air attack on bridges and trains, and commando style operations, the TSRR will not be able to provide supply eastward to the Vladivostok region, and the Soviet position in the Far East will run out of stockpiled materials.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 13122
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by ljadw » 30 Jun 2022 06:23

Takao wrote:
29 Jun 2022 20:41
ljadw wrote:
29 Jun 2022 20:21
Konoye was replaced before PH by Tojo.Thus it is very questionable to claim that he was a war criminal .
You really do not know anything about this do you?
HINT - The war, for the Japanese & Chinese did not begin on December 7, 1941. Take a look at His actions as Prime Minister 1937-39, and you will be enlightened. Thus, it is most certain to claim that he was a war criminal.

ljadw wrote:
29 Jun 2022 20:21
Besides on November 29 1941 during a meeting of all former PM's with the emperor, Konoye still voiced his opposition against the attack on PH .
On November 28 ,a week before the war .
Odd, previously you had said the moderates supported PH, now you are saying the moderates did not support PH.
Which one is it?

Or is it that Japanese moderates prefer beating up lesser countries that cannot adequately defend themselves over attacking more powerful countries that can.
I replied to post 190.
I do not say that all the moderates did not support PH, I say that Konoye did not support PH .It is not because he opposed PH that all moderates opposed PH .
And that Konoye was PM between 1937 and 1939 does not mean that he was responsible for the crimes of the Japanese army in China during that period .
To say that Konoye was responsible because he was PM,is the same as saying that the Italian king was responsible for the Italian crimes during the war in Ethiopia or that the French PM of 1957 was responsible for the French crimes during the Battle of Alger or that Westmorland or even Johnson were (co) responsible for My Lai or Churchill for the crimes in the war against the Maumau, etc,etc .
No one said during 1937-1939 that the Japanese attack on China was a war crime .
Thus ,to prove that Konoye was a war criminal, one must prove that he ordered the war crimes in China .

Von Schadewald
Member
Posts: 2041
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:17
Location: Israel

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by Von Schadewald » 30 Jun 2022 13:02

Without the Bofors and the 5" proximity fuse as last resorts, the Allied navies would have had trouble fending off the kamikazes from 1944. The pom-pom, Oerlikon and Chicago Piano were insufficient.

The Kamikaze motto was "one plane, one warship!". This was a legacy of Japanese military culture and religion. Even today 36,000 Japanese commit suicide per year (the UK is 5000).

But militarily it makes sense. WI "Bushiddo", "Banzai", "Sepuku", "Harikiri", "Samurai", and "Kamikaze" suicidal aircraft tactics had been deployed already in 1943 or even earlier?

With rapidly reducing critical assets and air fleets on both sides, it would either result in a 1 year war and a truce, or something from "The Shape of Things to Come" ie a 30 year war with humanity reduced to barbarism.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5586
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 01:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by glenn239 » 30 Jun 2022 14:24

Von Schadewald wrote:
30 Jun 2022 13:02
The Kamikaze motto was "one plane, one warship!". This was a legacy of Japanese military culture and religion. Even today 36,000 Japanese commit suicide per year (the UK is 5000).

But militarily it makes sense. WI "Bushiddo", "Banzai", "Sepuku", "Harikiri", "Samurai", and "Kamikaze" suicidal aircraft tactics had been deployed already in 1943 or even earlier?
Kamikaze tactics in 1942 would have been absolutely devastating to the Allies in carrier battles, of course. So much so that it seems infeasible that the USN could do anything except withdraw their carriers and fight their carrier squadrons from land bases until the Essex Class was ready in overwhelming numbers.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3603
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by Takao » 30 Jun 2022 15:04

Von Schadewald wrote:
30 Jun 2022 13:02
Without the Bofors and the 5" proximity fuse as last resorts, the Allied navies would have had trouble fending off the kamikazes from 1944. The pom-pom, Oerlikon and Chicago Piano were insufficient.

The Kamikaze motto was "one plane, one warship!". This was a legacy of Japanese military culture and religion. Even today 36,000 Japanese commit suicide per year (the UK is 5000).

But militarily it makes sense. WI "Bushiddo", "Banzai", "Sepuku", "Harikiri", "Samurai", and "Kamikaze" suicidal aircraft tactics had been deployed already in 1943 or even earlier?

With rapidly reducing critical assets and air fleets on both sides, it would either result in a 1 year war and a truce, or something from "The Shape of Things to Come" ie a 30 year war with humanity reduced to barbarism.
So much is wrong with this...So let's take it from the top.
Without the Bofors and the 5" proximity fuse as last resorts, the Allied navies would have had trouble fending off the kamikazes from 1944. The pom-pom, Oerlikon and Chicago Piano were insufficient.
The 40mm Bofors was inadequate in stopping the Kamikaze, as the shell was to small to reliably destroy a Kamikaze aircraft before it impacted the target vessel. This is why the USN switched to the 3-inch/50 caliber as it's primary tertiary AA weapon system - the larger shell had enough destructive force and could utilize the proximity fuse.

The best defense against the Kamikaze was the proximity fuse & the "Big Blue Blanket."

The Kamikaze motto was "one plane, one warship!".
It was a motto the Kamikaze never lived up to.

Between losses, mechanical problems, navigation errors, and poor information, it took many more aircraft than one plane.
This was a legacy of Japanese military culture and religion.
Bull Crap!

The Kamikaze were a product of Japan's increasing desperation as their conventional naval forces continued to suffer ever mounting losses, while being completely unable to stop the USN.
The Japanese IGHQ rational was - If our pilots are going to die anyway, they might as well die ramming US ships.

Read some of the Kamikaze last letters or their diaries, there is little to nothing about military culture or religion...Many wrote about giving their lives to keep the Americans away from their loved ones back in Japan.

WI "Bushiddo", "Banzai", "Sepuku", "Harikiri", "Samurai", and "Kamikaze" suicidal aircraft tactics had been deployed already in 1943 or even earlier?
Why? Japan was not yet suffering enormous losses and Conventional attacks were still relatively successful in 1942.
They began to feel the bite in 1943, but 1943 was a quiet year for major fleet actions, as both sides were rebuilding & reequipping their navies for 1944.

Further, the inability of Japan to transfer large amounts of aircraft, base them, and maintain them until needed argues against the mass Kamikaze raids of 1944-45 occurring in 1942-43. For instance, 1 large 1944 Kamikaze raid would strip all aircraft from Rabaul in 1 day, leaving 0 for it's defense. Thus, allowing the Americans free reign over any and all Japanese military bases with in range.

TLDR - Japan Kamikazes earlier, Japan runs out of planes & pilots earlier, Japan is defeated earlier.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5586
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 01:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by glenn239 » 30 Jun 2022 18:41

Takao wrote:
30 Jun 2022 15:04

The Kamikaze were a product of Japan's increasing desperation as their conventional naval forces continued to suffer ever mounting losses, while being completely unable to stop the USN.
The first apparent kamikaze attack was at Pearl Harbor, when a Soryu fighter made what appeared to be a controlled dive into a hanger after being hit by AA. Torpedo bomber crews also openly discussed kamikaze attacks on torpedo nets as a possible contingency, so the attitude pre-existed the war in the frontline squadrons. What didn't exist was a willingness in higher command to use such tactics.
TLDR - Japan Kamikazes earlier, Japan runs out of planes & pilots earlier, Japan is defeated earlier.
For that to be true the Japanese would have to be using their kamikazes against their own flight schools and aircraft factories. I think most posters were kind of picturing a scenario where the Kamikazes were reserved for US carriers in fleet actions. You know. Common sense.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3603
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by Takao » 30 Jun 2022 20:38

glenn239 wrote:
30 Jun 2022 18:41

The first apparent kamikaze attack was at Pearl Harbor, when a Soryu fighter made what appeared to be a controlled dive into a hanger after being hit by AA. Torpedo bomber crews also openly discussed kamikaze attacks on torpedo nets as a possible contingency, so the attitude pre-existed the war in the frontline squadrons. What didn't exist was a willingness in higher command to use such tactics.
Sorry Glenn, but Lt. Iida was not a "true" Kamikaze(intentionally diving an initially undamaged aircraft into a target). He A6M2 had sustained damage to it's fuel system. Leaving Iida with no fuel to return to Soryu(although he might possibly have made it to a pre-arranged ditching area) - Thus, Iida's choices were to bail out and be captured or to do as much damage as possible. Iida chose to do as much damage as possible, and aimed his aircraft at a hanger.

Now - Here is the catch...This highly trained Japanese pilot MISSED HIS INTENDED TARGET! Resulting in him plowing a field on a nearby hillside. How does a highly trained pilot miss a large immobile hangar? This only serves to underscore the difficulty in intentionally ramming a maneuvering, defending target, even with highly trained pilots.

You probably would have been better pointing to the Japanese aircraft that struck the USS CURTISS shortly after 9AM.

Better luck next time.


glenn239 wrote:
30 Jun 2022 18:41
For that to be true the Japanese would have to be using their kamikazes against their own flight schools and aircraft factories.
...
You know. Common sense.
Sorry, but again, no Glenn.

Yamamoto's first draft of the Pearl Harbor attack was as a one-way mission for all attacking aircraft of the 6 carriers. But, even Yamamoto was not this stupid. He realized the great harm that would be done to the IJN by sacrificing all the pilots and their aircraft. The losses in trained pilots would take an extraordinarily long time to make good. As well as Japanese production of aircraft would also take too long to make good.

What If none of the Japanese planes and pilots made it back from Pearl Harbor? Where would the pilots come from when Hiryu & Soryu intervened at Wake Island? Where would the Japanese carrier pilots come from that fought in the mopping up operations of early-42? Where would the pilots come from that participated in Operation C? Where would the pilots come from that fought at Coral Sea? Where would the pilots come from that fought at Midway? The whole thing just snowballs.

So, please Glenn, use some of that common sense you talk about.
Or has common sense, become uncommon these days.

glenn239 wrote:
30 Jun 2022 18:41
I think most posters were kind of picturing a scenario where the Kamikazes were reserved for US carriers in fleet actions.
The Kamikazes were "reserved" for the priority targets.

Problem with that, is that priorities go out the window as soon as the bullets start flying. Which is why only a very small portion of attacks were expended against the fleet carriers. Kamikazes expended themselves mainly against the first targets they came across. Course it did not help that the untrained pilots could not differentiate ship types.

What was the largest ship sunk by a Kamikaze? A fleet carrier? Nope. Battleship? Nope. A cruiser then? Nope.
Darn, that's all the priority targets.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3603
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by Takao » 30 Jun 2022 21:58

ljadw wrote:
30 Jun 2022 06:23
And that Konoye was PM between 1937 and 1939 does not mean that he was responsible for the crimes of the Japanese army in China during that period .
He was not responsible for the crimes of the Japanese Army. He was responsible for the crimes committed by the Japanese government

ljadw wrote:
30 Jun 2022 06:23
To say that Konoye was responsible because he was PM,is the same as saying that the Italian king was responsible for the Italian crimes during the war in Ethiopia or that the French PM of 1957 was responsible for the French crimes during the Battle of Alger or that Westmorland or even Johnson were (co) responsible for My Lai or Churchill for the crimes in the war against the Maumau, etc,etc .
You do love your strawmen, don't you.

ljadw wrote:
30 Jun 2022 06:23
No one said during 1937-1939 that the Japanese attack on China was a war crime .
Sure they did.. Beginning with the League of Nations in 1932. What did the Japanese do, withdrew from the League.
ljadw wrote:
30 Jun 2022 06:23
Thus ,to prove that Konoye was a war criminal, one must prove that he ordered the war crimes in China .
He was the PM who ordered the invasion of China. He was the PM who continued the war in China. He was guilty of Crimes Against Peace and Crimes against Humanity.

Return to “What if”