How might Japan have won, or at least pull off a draw, in the Pacific War?
Say it's January 1942 and you're running the show. The war is already on so how do you win?
By January of 1942, it's already too late. There is 0 way to win a total war with the U.S., no matter how well you fight: Even with allocating the bulk of their resources to Europe, the U.S. outproduced Japan in important metrics, like carriers, by about 8:1; and those Essex carriers held more and better aircraft than what the Japanese are fielding. No amount of tactical success is going to hold off that tide if the U.S. really wants you dead.
Therefore, the only way you have a chance is to to the attrition-coercion route: You don't win, but you're expensive and bloody and dangerous enough that the U.S. doesn't think it's worth it to keep fighting and you can negotiate a peace with honor.
Unfortunately for Japan, the sneak attack at Pearl Harbor scuttled any such chances of that happening, and this was an ideological war to win and crush Japan into the dirt and break them forever, and damn the cost.
If you want to have a chance, you need to alter that underlying fact, the political pinning of the war; and to do that, you can't strike first. Best would be to respond to the American oil embargo by attacking the NEI and calling FDR's bluff that he would defend the Dutch government-in-exile. If they do declare war, loudly proclaim how you're fighting to protect innocent Asian people from perfidious colonial imperialists; like the U.S. which are threatening to do the same to them. Get involved in the press, the American press, but in the meantime defend hard, and knock out Guam and the Philipines, you can't afford those in your rear, but only AFTER the U.S. declares war.
Block off the sea of Japan to Lend-Lease, and give diplomatic assurances to FDR (whose main priority is and always was Europe) that you'd allow the Americans to ship through to Vladivostok and even use your own ports in Manchuria and Korea in exchange for a cessation of hostilities, and maybe work towards a larger peace deal.
They lost the war when they attacked Pearl Harbor and failed to destroy the pacific fleet carriers and misjudged the American reaction.
Had they stopped at china and held onto korea and its various other conquered territories the regime that started the conflict with the US may well have survived past 1945.
There's really no way for Japan to win. If I was suddenly placed in charge at that point, I'd have the Emperor condemn the attack on Pearl Harbor, apologize and offer to pay reparations for it, hand over those involved for trial, and pray that the US would be satisfied.
The Pacific fleet in Pearl Harbor at the time of the strikes was 2 pretty good prewar carriers, 8 obsolescent battleships, 5 cruisers, and some smaller craft.
Even if the Japanese wipe the entire fleet out, it wouldn't cripple the U.S.'s ability to fight in the Pacific. There's still the vast majority of the fleet still based in the U.S., and that's nothing next to all the new ships that would come out over the course of the war itself.
They were getting choked out by a U.S. embargo on oil and coal,which led to a more aggressive expansion into south-east Asia, which sooner or later, Britain or France would get involved, as they had overseas territories there. Speaking of, Japan also attacked the British in Hong Kong on Dec 7 along with Pearl Harbor, Wake Island, and some other territories, so they brought the wrath of two of the more powerful nations of that era.
So either they get the shit beaten out of them, or everyone just sits around and waits for them to fall
Yes but by the time the fleet on the west coast responded japan would have gained a pretty good foothold that would've been much more difficult to dislodge. Midway would not have happened the sameway.
Had the war dragged on long enough after VE day, it is possible that the US may well have become too war weary to fight all they way to japan like it did.
>Yes but by the time the fleet on the west coast responded japan would have gained a pretty good foothold that would've been much more difficult to dislodge
They already had pretty good footholds that would be hard to dislodge in everywhere that mattered. The main thrust progression along the Marhsalls and then the Marianas to get to the Phillipines was all in Japan's pre-war territory.
And while MIdway wouldn't have happened in the same way, it really doesn't matter; the fact that a trio of pre-wars could best the Japanese fleet is a bad, bad sign, because the U.S. has much bigger and nastier carriers coming out starting the end of 1942.
> Had the war dragged on long enough after VE day, it is possible that the US may well have become too war weary to fight all they way to japan like it did.
Extremely unlikely. They were perfectly willing to go ahead with Downfall, which had projected casualties well over a million. The U.S. wanted Japan dead, and was going to get it. A longer period of naval skirmishing (which is comparatively less deadly than protracted land campaigns by WW2) isn't going to mean much.
>The Pacific fleet in Pearl Harbor at the time of the strikes was 2 pretty good prewar carriers, 8 obsolescent battleships, 5 cruisers, and some smaller craft.
>There's still the vast majority of the fleet still based in the U.S.
anons are right. in November 1941 you maybe can win by simply attacking the Dutch to secure oil....screaming anti-imperialism all the way. make the US attack first. then make the US pay dearly to gain territory but fight as gentlemen like grand-dad did in 1905.
>How might Japan have won, or at least pull off a draw, in the Pacific War?
By summarily executing every officer remotely responsible for the assassination of the Manchurian warlord in 1931 and holding the Kwantung Army on an incredibly short leash.
>Say it's January 1942 and you're running the show. The war is already on so how do you win?
Unconditional surrender immediately. Japan was fucked the minute they started the war.
I would win, as an individual, by embezzling as much as I can get away with, stealing from occupied territories, exchanging loot for gold and silver bullion then changing my identity and abscond to Brazil at the end of the war.
What this is forgetting is the Soviet Union. A couple months after the war in Europe ended the Russians swept through Manchuria and Korea. Japan would be occupied by Soviets long before American morale broke
The Soviets had no where near the same capabilities for amphibious operations that the U.S., both in terms technology and experience. It would've taken them awhile to be able to mount a successful invasion of the Japanese mainland.
I think it's possible to drag out the pacific war long enough, but even if you did you couldn't also hold on to Chinese land and you'd lose Korea once the Soviets get involved. It'd end the same anyway.
On December 7th, 1941, the fleet at Pearl Harbor (counting capital ships only) were
CV, , Enterprise, Lexington
BB Arizona, California, Maryland, Nevada, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennesee, West Virginia,
Cruisers: New Orleans, St Louis, San Francisco, Detroit, Helena, Honolulu, Phoenix, Raleigh.
So I apologize. It was 8 cruisers, not 5. It's still a small fraction of the U.S. fleet, which had quite a bit more ships to throw even if every last one of them sunk at Pearl Harbor.
The Soviets are never going to occupy Japan without a fleet, and they're not going to get a fleet in the Pacific unless the Americans give them one; which isn't likely to happen. The Soviets can overrun the Japanese positions in China, but they can't effectively threaten the home islands.
>Enterprise and Lexington were attached to Pearl
Ships are not attached to bases. They are attached to formations. Saratoga was part of the Pacific Fleet. It was not at Pearl at the time of the attacks, but that doesn't make it any less part of the Pacific Fleet than the Lex or the Enterprise, which were not at Pearl either.
There were more than 5 cruisers.
You have to get close enough to japan to drop the nuke first.
And as others have mentioned the soviets would not have had the materiel to mount an amphibious invasion, and not soon enough after VE day.
>It's still a small fraction of the U.S. fleet,
You are either really bad at maths or don't understand the English language. 3 carriers and 8 battleships are almost 1/2 of USN's capital ship numbers. 1/2 is not a small fraction.
>USN lands 5 Soviet guard divisions in October 1945.
Not likely to fucking happen. Terms between Russia and the US over Germany were cautious at best, we knew Stalin was not somebody to be trusted.
CV-4 (Ranger) was returning to Norfolk, on the east coast, and arrived there on the 8th of December.
USS Ranger: The Navy's First Flattop from Keel to Mast, 1934–1946. Potomac Books. ISBN 978-1-57488-720-4. p 177
CV-7 (Wasp) was in Grassy Bay, in Bermuda at the time of the Pearl Harbor attacks.
CV-3 (Saratoga) was in San Diego harbor, and the only one assigned to the Pacific, but still well outside the target zone.
Lundstrom, John B. (1994). The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1-55750-526-8. pp26-27
Please get some idea what you're talking about.
by 1944 the Japanese could not stop the US campaign in the Central Pacific. Even if resources were tight they would simply transfer units from the South Pacific. worst, worst case those cannibals on Chichi Jima get their wish and die for the emperor so the US can have an airbase.
>Continuing the war also ended up being a spectalar outcome for them economically
Yeah destroying much of the nation was a spectacular economic feat. inb4 muh 80s prosperity couldn't have happened without ww2.
There were 7 pre-war carriers. 2 that were based in Pearl Harbor is well, 2/7
There were 16 battleships on the active rolls, Mississippi, Texas, Washington, Maryland, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennesee, West Virginia, Arkansas, Idaho, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Arizona, California, and Nevada.
That's not counting the ones that were in partial states of construction; all of those newer North Carolina, South Dakota, and Iowa class battleships which were the ones actually doing battleship work in the Pacific historically.
For cruisers, I believe it's 33, but don't quote me on that, so we're talking about a quarter of them.
The only thing that even gets to 50% are in the "obsolescant battleship" category, which is not a crippling loss. The vast majority of U.S. capital ships were not at Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941, and you're an idiot to keep arguing this point.
Were you dropped as a baby? Or perhaps thrown?
The point is that none of them were in Pearl Harbor, and only one of the three you mentioned were assigned to Pacific operations at the time, and that therefore they were not in danger in the Pearl Harbor attacks, you utter imbecile.
>US campaign in the Central Pacific
Yes that is what happened in actual events yes but a delayed reaction (6mos to year) by the US when all of its vital fleet was destroyed at pearl harbor would not necessarily mean that would have happened.
We would still be way beyond Iwo Jima, and the B-29 would not have had the range to drop the bomb on the mainland.
Even if we had dropped it on a Japanese territory outside of the home islands I doubt that would demotivated them enough to surrender.
They didn't want to surrender after the first bomb on Hiroshima, because the Japs couldn't believe what the bomb could do what it could do at first.
>We would still be way beyond Iwo Jima, and the B-29 would not have had the range to drop the bomb on the mainland.
Both atomic bombing missions were staged out of Tinian, which is in the Marianas.
No, they would not have. You can't just "make" a ship capable of something it's not meant for.
In any case we know that they needed CVs to the point of renting one from the Brits yet the Ranger never left the Atlantic.
only Lexington and Enterprise were at risk of getting sunk at Pearl. so even on the best day the USN still has 5 carrier to hold the line until the Essex goes to sea in December 42.....
>>do keep up
>There were 7 pre-war carriers. 2 that were based in Pearl Harbor is well, 2/7
There were not 2 based in Pearl Harbor. There were 3. Saratoga was in San Diego, but it was part of the Pacific Fleet. Again, ships are not attached to bases. They are attached to fleets. If CV2 and 5 are "based in Pearl Harbor," then so is CV3.
>The vast majority of U.S. capital ships were not at Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941
Right, if you count ships that did not exist at the time, and count cruisers as capital ship, and ignore the Saratoga which, just like CV-2 and 6, was part of the PacFleet but not physically at Pearl Harbor.
USS Ranger was only deemed "unfit" for the PTO because she wasn't a "fast carrier"....if she was needed they would have deployed her.
That said even without Ranger they still would have had the Wasp, Hornet, and Saratoga.
>There were not 2 based in Pearl Harbor. There were 3. Saratoga was in San Diego, but it was part of the Pacific Fleet. Again, ships are not attached to bases. They are attached to fleets. If CV2 and 5 are "based in Pearl Harbor," then so is CV3.
I honestly don't know what point you're trying to make here. You even acknowledge that Saratoga wasn't at Pearl Harbor when the Japanese struck, and could not possibly have been. Unless you're suggesting that the Japanese try to get at it in San Diego, there is no way of handling the Pearl Harbor strike as to catch it, therefore, the Japanese have no chance of sinking it.
>Right, if you count ships that did not exist at the time
I'm counting the ships that actually participated in offensive operations in the Pacific, which you'll note, does not include WW1 era battleships.
> and count cruisers as capital ship,
They were a hell of a lot more important than old scows like the Tennesee or the Pennsylvania, as they could actually keep up with the carriers.
>USS Ranger was only deemed "unfit" for the PTO because she wasn't a "fast carrier"
No, the Ranger was not capable of launching aircraft in rough seas and was extremely fragile even for a carrier. Just say you don't know anything about the subject. It's far less humiliating than literally making up random terms.
>if she was needed they would have deployed her
This is not a matter for speculation as the USN actually did need a carrier but did not choose to deploy the woefully inadequate Ranger in the PTO.
>I'm counting the ships that actually participated in offensive operations in the Pacific, which you'll note, does not include WW1 era battleships.
Here is a partial list of "WW1 era" battleships that took part in the PTO from all nations
WW2 in reality was somewhat different from a version of history you patched up from memes.
>How might Japan have won, or at least pull off a draw, in the Pacific War?
The IJN executes the IJA leadership in a coup d'etat and forces a negotiated peace in China while declaring war on Germany in exchange for Lend Lease.
Of the 5 American ships you listed, only one of them ever engaged a Japanese vessel, the West Virginia. Tennessee, Maryland, and California's entire careers would be spent providing shore bombardment and the occasional flak, a duty in which they are not really any more suited than a more modern cruiser.
The Washington wasn't a WW1 battleship, it was a North Carolina class, and surprise, the difference between 28 knots and 21 knots is actually a huge fucking deal even before you get into the other technological innovations.
No, the battleships at Pearl Harbor were not actually critical to winning the naval war, and I don't know why you keep insisting they were. They were marginally useful, little more.
>Last time I read, far less suited.
In Europe, that would definitely be the case: The larger guns are nice, but really, there aren't too many targets on the ground that can stand up to a 6" shell but not a 16" one. And the BB can't close the way a smaller vessel can, it needs deeper water.
On a lot of those Pacific atolls though, the battleships could get in very close, in fact closer than cruisers could because the limiting factor wasn't water depth, but what the Japanese shore batteries could spit out; and the BB have better armor.
But it's a case by case thing depending on the local geography of each little island, and ultimately, not a big deal.
>Of the 5 American ships you listed, only one of them ever engaged a Japanese vessel, the West Virginia. Tennessee, Maryland, and California's entire careers would be spent providing shore bombardment and the occasional flak, a duty in which they are not really any more suited than a more modern cruiser.
And guess how often the Iowas and the South Dakotas engaged the Japanese battle line in a Jutland style battle.
Washington was at Gauadalcanal, beat the shit out of the Kirishima, South Dakota fought with Takao and Atago in the same.
More importanlty though, the newer, faster battleships could keep pace with the carriers, and acted as escorts for them, something which the old Colorado and South Dakota class vessels were incapable of doing, making them pretty meaningless for a carrier dominated war.
a lot of people seems to think Russia would have mounted an invasion od the Japanese mainland but here the question. How would they do this they don't have the material or experience for a naval invasion. Do they have the will to do so consider everything that happened with the soviets loses vast amounts of people to axis invasion why would they send more troops to die when the Americans can send their own.
For all that the Americans ITT underestimate Japan, it says alot that it took the industrially superstrong US as long to defeat Japan as it took backwards Russia to defeat the technologically superior Germany.
Japanese troops and pilots were truly the best of the war to last so long.
everyone here seems to forget that the carriers were NOT at Pearl harbor on December 7. Secondly, no one has mentioned that the Yorktown was also there too along with the saratoga and lexington.
When Yorktown was sunk at Midway, that was a really freaking big deal! Having lost a carrier at the Coral Sea months earlier, the US position by Jan 1942 is one of weakness, not strength. You dont know that the US is going to build up all those ships, (thats hindsight)
At this point, the best thing to do is NOT engage at midway and make each battle bloody for the americans
You kind of do know the U.S. is going to build all those ships, since they were at various stages of partial construction at the time of Midway. Hell, a lot of them were laid down before Pearl Harbor.
Or are you talking from the Japanese perspective? I'm not sure how good their intel on U.S. shipbuilding was in details like that, but they were aware that the U.S. massively outproduced them, and the longer the war dragged, the worse things would get.
It took a lot of time to assemble a fleet of landing craft to actually take islands and put the fight to the Japanese. Tarawa, the first opposed invasion of the Pacific war that the Americans attempted, was in February of 1944. It really didn't take long to fold up Japan at all, just that the U.S. had higher priorities in Europe.
Nigga, there was an ocean between the US and Japan. The amount of sheer materiel needed to conduct amphibious landings is ridiculous. Maintaining supply lines across a fucking ocean is something only the US could have done, as evidenced by the starvation of thousands of IJA/IJN servicemen in the Pacific.
Don't bring your weebshit here.
Does someone have more info about how the treaties during Bakumatsu fucked up the country, especially economically? I found a lot about the inside political shenanigans, but not the economy. At most it is mentioned how foreigners were using the high price of silver in Japan to buy their gold, but not much else important. Many American sources even completely ignore any negatives and say how Japan just got technology out of it.
No they'd have had even worse chances of getting concessions in 1942 than they had in 1945. Pearl Harbor was still a very recent memory, and the entire US was in the kind of blood-for-the-blood-god mindset we didn't see again until right after 9/11.
>When Yorktown was sunk at Midway, that was a really freaking big deal!
Not as freaking big a deal as losing 4 out of 6 carriers.
>Having lost a carrier at the Coral Sea months earlier, the US position by Jan 1942 is one of weakness, not strength.
I'm guessing you meant to type June 1942, as neither Coral Sea nor Midway had happened by Jan 1942. Anyway, in June 1942, the two sides' carrier strengths in the Pacific stack up as follows:
>Shokaku, Zuikaku, various CVLs
>Hornet, Enterprise, Saratoga, and Wasp, which was basically a large CVL
I'm not seeing a position of weakness.
Japan was almost struggling to produce one aircraft carrier at the time. Meanwhile the USA could churn out seven aircraft carriers at a time.
Victory was never an option so long as the US was set on fighting the war.
Best option Japan had was making the Americans sick of war by making it too costly for the far less fanatically suicidal Americans and maybe get to surrender to the US on favorable terms. It might have worked. Then the US aquired nukes at that was it.
Nips overall had a shit kill death ratio against the US and only managed a positive kill death ratio on a single island. Not counting the one invaded by combined Canadian American forces that managed to suffer a number of casualties and MIA and even damages to a couple of warships despite the island in question having zero Japanese forces anywhere near it.
>only managed a positive kill death ratio on a single island
No. They inflicted more casualties than they suffered on Iwo Jima, but the vast majority of those were wounded, not dead. Losses were
>~18,000 dead Japs
>~6,000 dead Allies and 19,000 wounded
>Concentrate forces in Taiwan for a strike south
>Strategical withdrawal of majority of troops in the Philippines
>Hope and pray that Military Top Brass in the US listen to Macarthur and send him the majority of US forces in hopes of pushing the Japanese out of the Philippines
>Strike when US Forces are still being readied for the coming offensive
>Hope that ancestors smile on you and you somehow defeat Macarthur at his most powerful
Anything other than this has a 0% chance to work whilst thus plan might have a 10%-20% chance of success
I don't see how this plan has any chance of success at all. If you're going to wait and allow the U.S. to reinforce, they're going to secure the Marshalls and the Marianas on their way there, at which point you're in deep shit even if you can take the Philippines.
And how are you going to get safe access to your oil in Indonesia with the Americans still holding the Philippines?
Well you wouldn't lose access to oil for that long as it would take the Americans only about 2 weeks to a month to bring all supplies, men and equipment to the Philippines assuming that everything is organised. The idea isn't to take the Philippines the idea is to concentrate American forces in the Philippines so that the American forces can be bottled in, surrounded and eventually destroyed, leaving the Americans without almost any kind of force left in the Pacific. Its basically trying to create a Pearl Harbour II in the Philippines by exploiting the one man who would actually try to get all of these forces to the Philippines; Macarthur
It historically took over 6 months to pacify the Philippines. If you allow the Americans to build up before you make your move, it'll take even longer.
In the meantime, their submarines and airplanes are raiding along in every direction, and cutting you off from your only source of oil. This "plan" is insane. Manila is a dagger pointed at the artery of Japanese merchant shipping, and it needs to be removed, ASAP; to be perfectly honest, striking at the Philippines is probably more important than striking at Pearl Harbor.
Not fighting at all would be ideal. However, war in the Pacific was inevitable, so they could have at least tried to avoid instigating it themselves. Japan knew that they lacked the industry to take on America in a long-term conflict, so they hoped to try and erode American public support for the war with some quick victories. If they let America make the first move, it will be harder for them to keep this public support: many people in the USA are still reluctant to fight again after the first world war because they don't see why they should be fighting other countries' battles, and they especially won't want to die for some backwater European colonial possessions in east Asia.
At the very least they should avoid attacking Pearl Harbor: as well as saving their already overstretched logistics from being spread even thinner, by avoiding attacking American soil directly it will also keep the American public's view of the war as "over there" instead of "over here". If they feel directly threatened, they will be thrown into a jingoistic frenzy that sticks around for decades (with the help of the cold war, at least).
Going back to idea of Americans not wanting to die for Europe's colonies, they should constantly proclaim that they're liberating East Asia, and invoke comparisons between their own actions and the American revolution.
Finally, they should definitely discipline their soldiers better. If they act like gentlemen instead of savage retards, they will seem much more reasonable and civilized in the eyes of the enemy, making suing for peace a more attractive option (and making the jobs of Allied propagandists much harder).
>these people have similar ideas of how to handle a specific situation
>they must therefore be the same person
>t. Best would be to respond to the American oil embargo by attacking the NEI and calling FDR's bluff that he would defend the Dutch government-in-exile.
How are you going to refine the oil, dingus?
>How might Japan have won, or at least pull off a draw, in the Pacific War?
They'd have to try to negotiate peace before mid 1942. Just to make their currency exchangeable again and embargo loosened.
Otherwise there was just no way in which they could keep up with the US.
>How would they do this they don't have the material or experience for a naval invasion
Materials - yes, this was something they needed to make but they've had some minor experience with amphibious assaults gained on rivers. Which on practical level seems different but on strategic/preparation level it was worth a lot to such operation.
Then again the bulk of establishing the footholds would likely rely on paratroopers capturing ports commando-style which is something Soviets were familiar with.
Outside of it, they thought of doing this AFTER the US invades. They invade, Japanese send most of their reserves to fight them, which opens a window for easy invasion for the Red Army, even if they're poorly prepared for it.
> The war is already on so how do you win?
1) execute every single samurai retard in the government.
2) declare war on USSR and surrender to them immediately.
This is only way not to lose the war with the USA.