D-Day
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-06-2016, 12:09 PM
RE: D-Day
Japan effectively lost the war in 1938 with the passage of the Naval Act of 1938 and 1940 with the Two-Ocean Navy Act. These bills permitted the development and began construction of Essex-class carriers, Iowa-class battleships, Baltimore-class heavy cruisers and so on to begin long before the first plane took off from Akagi on Dec. 7. We originally planned for 18 Essex CVs. We said "screw it" and upped the order to 32. The Japanese built only about 50 destroyers during the course of the war and only completed a couple of aircraft carriers or carrier/conversions (and these of questionable quality). They were completely over-matched and Yamamoto, who had served at the embassy in Washington knew all too well.


Another mistake the Japanese made was the failure to recognize the submarine menace. If we had fixed our torpedo problem right away Japan would have been starved in 1943.

The reason for both these mistakes was their belief that they didn't matter. That we would be so overwhelmed by their Pearl Harbor attack that we would sue for peace and allow them to consolidate the gains they made in the moves against the DEI, Malaya and the Philippines.

They fucked that up, too.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Minimalist's post
07-06-2016, 05:48 PM
RE: D-Day
This thread is really getting broad. I am going to start a specific WWII thread in the History section. That way we can include everything.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2016, 05:59 PM (This post was last modified: 08-06-2016 12:13 PM by Thumpalumpacus.)
RE: D-Day
(07-06-2016 03:20 AM)Banjo Wrote:  The Luftwaffe could have dealt with the navy as the RAF was decimated following the French debacle. Look how easily the Japanese took out the prince of Wales and Repulse.

Chalk and cheese most definitely. The RAF in the far East had a hundred or so Brewster Buffaloes, lumbering fighters, and perhaps 30 Hurricanes, no match for a Zero; and Admiral Phillips deliberately chose to sail into waters he knew were hours away from air cover -- and though he didn't know it, well within the range of Japanese land bombers.

As for the RAF being "decimated", history shows otherwise. Dowding took a lot of heat for refusing to let out the fighters over France even as it was being overrun, because he knew that the onslaught was imminent. The fact is that 2/3 of the Luftwaffe comprised bombers, only one of which -- the Ju-88 -- was modern enough to deal with the British defenses. The -87 was withdrawn for being clickbait, and the He-111 and Do-17 were both slow and carried low loadouts. Me109s had about 20 minutes' combat time before their limited radius demanded return to base.

The Limeys had Spits to deal with them, and Hurris to take down the bombers, and though both were also short-ranged, they were flying defense and therefore had more combat time.

Comparing that to a naval situation wherein the commanding Admiral sailed without fighter cover knowing that the enemy was approaching and using air is silly.

(07-06-2016 03:20 AM)Banjo Wrote:  109's and 110's would not have to travel so far. Certainly not over London. And the British army had no weapons, having left them at Dunkirk. The Germans also had a large glider force. The British home guard was armed with broomsticks. Not much trouble for paratroopers.

Except that the Brits had enough to deal with advanced forces, and the Germans had not the ability to protect an assault landing.

(07-06-2016 03:20 AM)Banjo Wrote:  The real reason is Hitler did not wish to fight the British. The war was never meant to go west. It was supposed to hit Poland and then go east. Lebensraum."

It's true that Hitler was flummoxed by the UK's refusal to accept the course of events, and that he felt a kinship towards them. But that has nothing to do with the military capabilities of the Wehrmacht, and that force was simply unable to produce the results AH desired. History shows that. For two months (10 Jul -- 17 Aug) they feverishly attacked RAF bases and convoys, and while they did much damage, they were unable to push to the goal -- and that is the only thing that matters in military operation: the mission. Even had Hitler ordered the operation to be initiated after Fall Rot, the OKW had not the plans nor the means to carry out such an order.

The Germans failed, in part for lack of adequate preparation, in part for lack of adequate training, and in large part due to lack of strategic cogency. You cannot improvise the invasion of an island nation, yet that is exactly what the Germans tried, and failed, to do.

Moving onto the USSR sealed their fate, but even had they not done that, I doubt they could have ever launched a successful amphibious assault.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
07-06-2016, 06:13 PM
RE: D-Day
(07-06-2016 05:19 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  There was no "third attack" planned at Pearl and such an attack would not have put Pearl Harbor out of business. The raid was intended to temporarily immobilize a significant portion of the US Fleet. Combatants were targeted, not infrastructure, because that's what the IJN could damage. They couldn't destroy the repair facilities, they couldn't destroy the fuel storage. Their targets were, first priority, "four battleships and four carriers".

Nagumo considered and rejected exactly this option, presented by Genda aboard Akagi, according to the sources I've read.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
07-06-2016, 06:21 PM
RE: D-Day
(07-06-2016 12:09 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  Another mistake the Japanese made was the failure to recognize the submarine menace. If we had fixed our torpedo problem right away Japan would have been starved in 1943.

This was perhaps their biggest long-range strategy error. PCs are cheap and easy to build, and notwithstanding their inferiority to DEs/DDs in magazine capacity, exercise a deterrent effect, insofar as at that time submerged subs traveled so slowly tha the sight of sufficient escort kept the sub out of range.

The Pacific War was won already by perhaps May 45, not by B-29s, but by throttling Japanese shipping. The nuclear bombs were simply exclamation points aimed at the Russians.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2016, 06:34 PM
RE: D-Day
I'm gonna answer this in the WWII thread. Fireball was right and I was wrong. This has gone wildly off topic. Now we're talking about torpedos. Smile

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
07-06-2016, 06:38 PM
RE: D-Day
OK, after reading all these posts about WW2, I have an observation that is more of a question. I'm not hot on military science, my interests lie primarily in the physical sciences, and further, I am not a mind reader. However, I do know that Japan is oil-poor; that is the reason they worked China over, for access to oil. Is it possible that the oil products available at Pearl Harbor weren't destroyed because of that weakness in Japan's oil supply? If (big word, I know) they had managed to do more damage than that which occurred, they could have used those resources, thus didn't destroy them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2016, 07:01 PM (This post was last modified: 08-06-2016 12:14 PM by Thumpalumpacus.)
RE: D-Day
(07-06-2016 06:38 PM)Fireball Wrote:  OK, after reading all these posts about WW2, I have an observation that is more of a question. I'm not hot on military science, my interests lie primarily in the physical sciences, and further, I am not a mind reader. However, I do know that Japan is oil-poor; that is the reason they worked China over, for access to oil. Is it possible that the oil products available at Pearl Harbor weren't destroyed because of that weakness in Japan's oil supply? If (big word, I know) they had managed to do more damage than that which occurred, they could have used those resources, thus didn't destroy them.

Firstly, they didn't go into China for oil, but rather for iron and rice. For oil, they attacked the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia), which plan instigated the Pacific War (the need to secure flanks meant attacking both Singapore and the Phillipines, meaning war with the UK and the US).

Secondly, they had no intention of occupying Oahu. The pilots had orders to attack the military shipping mentioned above, and as an adjunct, neutralize the airbases which might either resist the attack or send recon to find the Japanese fleet. The Japanese pilots had no orders to attack the fuel storage or repair facilities at Pearl -- both of which were vital to the Pacific effort.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2016, 07:32 PM
RE: D-Day
Here's one for you, Banjo. Did you know that Australia is one of the only nations outside of the major powers to develop its own tank, the AC1 (Australian Cruiser tank, Mark 1) "Sentinel"?

The Sentinel tank was a cruiser tank designed in Australia in World War II in response to the war in Europe, and to the threat of Japan expanding the war to the Pacific or even a feared Japanese invasion of Australia. It was the first tank to be built with a hull cast as a single piece, and the only tank to be produced in quantity in Australia. The few Sentinels that were built never saw action as Australia's armoured divisions had been equipped by that time with British and American tanks.

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

It also had the distinction of being the only tank that was equipped with a penis machinegun:

[Image: asb4MTJ.jpg]

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
07-06-2016, 07:45 PM
RE: D-Day
With all due respect to Nimitz all fifty-seven fuel tanks could have been refilled by 30 tankers in one month or ten tankers in three months. But the Japanese couldn't have destroyed all the tanks and fuel, they weren't equipped for it.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: