Would the pacific war have been different if the japs took out

no

t. a-bomb

just a bit longer until Essex class carriers arrived then the steamroller would have kicked in pushed by the unstoppable us industry

The war would have gone differently if Japan had attacked the fuel depots at Pearl Harbor and/or sending all 6 of their carriers to Midway instead of just 4.

>>31329238
We'd have lost the Battle of Midway by default, and possibly Hawaii. The Rape of Honolulu and the bombing of San Francisco would have pissed the country off badly enough that by the time we arrived in Okinawa in '46 or '47, we'd have zero compunctions about using up the couple dozen nukes we'd built.

So no. Not really. Not different. Just worse.

>>31329339
destroying the subs at pearl would have had way more of an impact
but instead they let those untouched and able to immediately strike jap lines

>>31329238
>Would the pacific war have been different if the japs took out all US carriers at pearl?

Yes.

The difference would be that the japs would have taken out all of the US carriers at pearl harbor.

That is the way in which it would be different.

Congratulations on the quality thread, OP.

>>31329275
I know you're joking but we didn't have the A-bomb for 4 years, so what would we have done in the meantime without carriers, the most important naval asset of ww2?

>>31329238
There would be no weebs today.

>>31329238

It would take many more months to start the counter offensive against IJN. Possible nips would make it to Australia.

Overall result would be the same, but war would be very different.

>>31329398
Savage

File: US_fleet_at_Majuro_Atoll_1944.jpg (3MB, 2957x1995px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2957x1995px

>>31329425
>It would take many more months to start the counter offensive against IJN. Possible nips would make it to Australia.
>Overall result would be the same
This. There was never any question of the US winning the Pacific War, just the length of time it would take to do so. Japan COULD NOT COMPETE economically.

>>31329359
>and possibly Hawaii

Assuming the Japanese could even put together an invasion force large enough to to take the islands, and then actually succesfully do it, they would then have to supply this far-flung garrison. Knowing their convoy and ASW capabilities (or their near-complete lack of them, to be more precise), the Hawaii garrison would very quickly become a massive drain on their resources, to the point where trying to hang onto it might actually cost them the war.

>>31329919
It would be suicidal to try desu

>>31330105
sounds right up their alley then

>>31330128
Kek

US get's so pissed off and nukes the fuck out of Japan, more than twice. Japan dies and anime never gets made.

Shame they didn't wipe out the US carrier fleet

File: 45646413262.gif (71KB, 278x340px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 278x340px

>>31329409
>>31330287
>he doesn't like anime

File: america is asshole.jpg (413KB, 1180x1736px) Image search: [Google]

413KB, 1180x1736px

>>31329404
Not all the carriers were at Pearl.
The Brits had carriers too.

>>31329794

The problem is, if they had all the CV's they already had and managed to make few more it would be hard to defeat them. It could take few more years of slowly building the navy to overwhelm them.

Just imagine Pacific War if Big E sank day 1.

>>31331067
>It could take few more years of slowly building the navy to overwhelm them.

It would take eighteen more months.

>>31331101

That's over a year of Japan being able do do whatever they want in the Pacific with pretty much no real opposition.

By the time USN was ready to fight they would have more ships and fuel they always had problems with.

>>31331067
>it would be hard to defeat them
No, it literally wouldn't be.
The IJN would have been steamrolled just as bad. Actually, if would be worse, because as the war is extended, then all the fancy new toys that were just a bit too late to be useful would have been mass produced. All six Iowas, probably Montanas, a shitload more Essexes, Midways. Bearcats escorting Peacemakers. Shit gives me a warboner just thinking about it.

>>31329238
No. THey had shitty production rates.

Funny thing, the japs shelled Long Beach, CA during the war. With a submarine!

Nothing would have been different in the Pacific war that wouldn't have happened a year later. Maybe a couple less bombers go to Europe because they're patrolling the West Coast.

>>31331020
There were no carriers at Pearl Harbor, OP's scenario is if the japs sunk all five of our carriers at Pearl Harbor.

>>31329238
It would have taken more time to curb stomp the Japanese into submission.
That's about it.

>>31331351
We had seven fleet carriers.

>>31331132
>more ships
Yes, more obsolete ships with shit damage control and no radar controlled guns.

File: If the US had gotten curbstomped at Midway.png (703KB, 1600x900px)

703KB, 1600x900px

>>31329339
>>31329373
>>31331067
>>31331132
Anons, read this. Pay attention to carrier production rates:
http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm
Pic related is what would have happened if the USN had lost every single carrier at Midway and the Japanese had lost none of their four, with projected production schedules out to June 1946.

Then read this, tangentially about the Third Wave at Pearl, especially RE: the chance those two fuel tank farms would have been hit:
https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/612aa0c4-47a1-4107-afbb-17fa992adf59/Reflecting-on-Fuchida,-or--A-Tale-of-Three-Whopper

>>31329359
>and possibly Hawaii. The Rape of Honolulu and the bombing of San Francisco
Phil, why do you even comment on topics like this? You clearly aren't familiar with even basic Japanese or American scholarship on this issue. There was ZERO chance of a successful Japanese invasion of Hawaii. NOTHING. It was never even seriously considered by the IJN, outside of the fever dreams of Genda, who was remarkably free from simple details like logistics and US concentration of forces in his thinking on the matter.

>>31331142
The heavy tanks and assault guns that the US was testing, and Russia knocking on their back door in Manchuria.

File: image.jpg (142KB, 601x500px)

142KB, 601x500px

>>31331537
>T95's face when Operation Downfall

>>31330904
Well, more like I don't like anime fans.

And don't lie to be weaboo, you know how your fellow 'fans' are.

>>31331351

there weren't 5 carrier at Pearl Harbor.

Only Yorktown, Enterprise, and Lexington were based there. Saratoga was in in San Diego undergoing refit, Hornet was doing shakedown in Norfolk, and Ranger was in the Atlantic.

-3 carriers still hurts, but the US can fight with their 4 carriers on hand.

>>31332150
Yorktown was actually on the east coast. So that number actually goes down to only Enterprise and Lexington being at risk and the US still has 5 carriers.

File: USS_Wasp_CV7_burning_after_sustaining_3_torpedo_hits_forward_15_Sep_1942.jpg (2MB, 3901x3101px)

2MB, 3901x3101px

>>31332150
>nobody remembers poor Wasp

>>31331020
Brit carriers were shit. Largest Brit naval force in modern history was just one auxiliary to the USN in the Pacific.

>>31332150
Those three, actually two, were based out of Pearl Harbor but were not present during the attack.

You don't speak English so good so lemme dumb it down for ya

OP is saying that, in a scenario where all five of our carriers were present at Pearl Harbor and were destroyed in the subsequent attack, how would the war in the Pacific had gone?

>>31329404
We would have fought a defensive war, slowing and containing the Japs while concentrating on Europe.

The Pacific would have been primarily a naval war, with minimal participartion by the Army and USMC. On the flip side, there would have been significant Marine involvement in Europe. Anzio, possibly, would have been a wholly Marine operation.

We would pump out carriers, but they wouldn't be ready to have an impact until late 43/early 44. Our subs would be running amok along the Jap supply lines.

The biggest difference is, we wouldn't start pushing the Japs back until 45 or thereabouts. Which means we would be nuking our way across the Pacific.

Picture the battles of Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and Tarawa being over in less than a day, with minimal US casualties. Of course, if we put garrison forces ashore we'd start learning about radiation poisoning the hard way.

We'd probably still nuke Japan.