Longest possible Pacific War

What chain of events would be necessary for a longer Pacific War? US loss at Midway, really bad Allied strategy? Is it possible for the war to drag into 1947?*

*For that I think it would need more of a strategic set back in 1944 followed by a very long pacification campaign inside Japan proper.

If history is as it was in reality to 7 December 1941

EnglishCanuck said:

What chain of events would be necessary for a longer Pacific War? US loss at Midway, really bad Allied strategy? Is it possible for the war to drag into 1947?* *For that I think it would need more of a strategic set back in 1944 followed by a very long pacification campaign inside Japan proper.

Click to expand...

If history is as it was in reality to 7 December 1941 and the US is attacked by Japan, there's no realistic way the Japanese could last until 1946, much less 1947.

All else being equal, have the Philippines gain their independence in 1936, as the result of a modified Tydings–McDuffie Act; the US and Japan agree to respect the RP's independence (for whatever that's worth from the Japanese Empire's point of view) and the US position in the western Pacific is limited to Guam. There would presumably be a "short of war" possibility for the US in the Pacific in 1941 as there was in the Atlantic, but there's a slender chance the Japanese could thread the needle.

All else is presumably the same, including the US trade embargo against Japan as a result of the China war; the British and Dutch may or may not agree in return for L-L (which has tremendous ripples of its own in the ETO), but there's an even chance that even an outright appeasement policy in the Pacific by the British could lead to the Japanese gambling on war against the European powers in 1941...

How that plays out is up to you, but the odds of an extended Pacific War are much higher in what amounts to an Anglo-Japanese confrontation than in the conflict as it developed historically.

Best,

TFSmith121 said:

If history is as it was in reality to 7 December 1941 and the US is attacked by Japan, there's no realistic way the Japanese could last until 1946, much less 1947.

All else being equal, have the Philippines gain their independence in 1936, as the result of a modified Tydings–McDuffie Act; the US and Japan agree to respect the RP's independence (for whatever that's worth from the Japanese Empire's point of view) and the US position in the western Pacific is limited to Guam. There would presumably be a "short of war" possibility for the US in the Pacific in 1941 as there was in the Atlantic, but there's a slender chance the Japanese could thread the needle.

All else is presumably the same, including the US trade embargo against Japan as a result of the China war; the British and Dutch may or may not agree in return for L-L (which has tremendous ripples of its own in the ETO), but there's an even chance that even an outright appeasement policy in the Pacific by the British coud lead to the Japanese gambling on war against the European powers in 1941...

How that plays out is up to you, but the odds of an extended Pacific War are much higher in what amounts to an Anglo-Japanese confrontation than in the conflict as it developed historically.

Best,

Click to expand...

There is just no way you can realistically butterfly away the aircraft and submarine blockade. Germany lasting longer and delays in the Manhattan project may delay the end of the war a few months but I would have thought that by Feb-Mar 1946 at the absolute latest Japan must surrender.

johnboy said:

There is just no way you can realistically butterfly away the aircraft and submarine blockade. Germany lasting longer and delays in the Manhattan project may delay the end of the war a few months but I would have thought that by Feb-Mar 1946 at the absolute latest Japan must surrender.

Click to expand...

I agree because most of the population would have been starving to death at that point and would be demanding surrender just to get food again.

First, delay Project Manhattan, or slow down all research on atomic bombs across the board.

Second... well, even without nuclear weapons Japan would still starve due the USN blockade. So either we go through TFSmith121 post which is a different Pacific War or, I think, we may need and almost ASB event: storms like the one which wrecked a lot of American ship after Japanese surrender happen during the war, seriously delaying American operations, or a meteorite strikes some of the American shipyards.

Yep...

johnboy said:

There is just no way you can realistically butterfly away the aircraft and submarine blockade. Germany lasting longer and delays in the Manhattan project may delay the end of the war a few months but I would have thought that by Feb-Mar 1946 at the absolute latest Japan must surrender.

Click to expand...

Yep... I think 1946 is unlikely, actually; ICEBERG was over and done by the third week of June; that gives the USN and USAAF four months straight to hit Japan absolutely unencumbered by any need to support an expeditionary force in action before OLYMPIC; even absent OLYMPIC (which was scheduled for November) I have a hard time seeing anything resembling "Imperial Japan" lasting until New Year's Day, 1946.

Cripes, along with the 20th AF, the 8th - entirely re-equipped with B-29s - would be in action. Add in the tactical air forces from the Rykyus and Iwo Jima, and the USN (and RN?) ... There were enough fast carriers in commission that both the 3rd and 5th fleets would have them assigned for OLYMPIC...

As it was, with the atomic bombings and the Soviet entrance into the war, the Japanese surrendered in August ...

Best,

The only way I could meaningfully seeing them holding out more then a month or so beyond OTL would be either for someone on the Japanese side to get really lucky or have better results then OTL, maybe some sub skipper pulling off something similar to I-19, or for some sort of bad luck on the part of the U.S. that causes a delay or disruption to operations, such as another Port Chicago style disaster, or maybe the West Loch Disaster turning out worse then OTL or something.

Yeah, but even any of those are (essentially) "minor"

ViperKing said:

The only way I could meaningfully seeing them holding out more then a month or so beyond OTL would be either for someone on the Japanese side to get really lucky or have better results then OTL, maybe some sub skipper pulling off something similar to I-19, or for some sort of bad luck on the part of the U.S. that causes a delay or disruption to operations, such as another Port Chicago style disaster, or maybe the West Loch Disaster turning out worse then OTL or something.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but even any of those are (essentially) "minor" in comparison to what the US and the Allies had in the Western Pacific or on its way by the spring-summer of 1945...

Just because these are easy to find, but in terms of aircraft production in 1945 alone, the US manufactured 49,761 a/c (including a large percentage of multi-engined aircraft); Japan got 11,066 out of the factories, almost all of them single-engined.

In 1944, the figures were 96,318 a/c in the US, 28,180 in Japan.

The highest total of aircraft production during the entire war was 67,987 in 1944, between Germany and Japan; the US alone built more than that in 1944 (96,318) and 1943 (85,898).

It's also worth noting that the US built more a/c than the entire Axis (including Italy) did in total in 1941 (26,277 v. 19,264) and in 1942 (47,836 v. 26,670...

All of the above is from Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.

Best,

Suppose Japan had a better shipbuilding capability, having industrialised Korea.

Suppose also carriers were sunk at Pearl Harbor.

Also imagine that Japan somehow finds out codes are compromised and wins at Midway?

As I remember, part of the reason the US dropped the atomic bombs on Japan was an agreement the US and USSR made after the allied victory in Berlin: US convinced Stalin that there was no need for Russia to help defeating Japan. America would defeat Japan within 3 months. So if Russia could just turn their greedy eyes from Asia until August... Well, that's not exactly how it was said, but that is what it came down to. The USSR would let the US take care of Asia until August 8th 1945. If Japan hadn't surrendered by then, Stalin was free to move his troops into whatever Asian country he liked. Long story short, US missed the deadline by a couple of days and now we have North Korea...

So in an alternate timeline:
Either, the Berlin agreement stands and the only way Japan could survive past August of '45 is if the US and USSR start fighting amongst each other in August '45. The Korean war starts early and the final assault on Japan is pushed to the back burner until Korea is taken care off.

Or, in Berlin the USSR somehow agrees to Stay out of Asia indefinitely and in a shift of priorities the US continues its bombing campaign against Japan but focuses his land war on liberating China, Korea and Vietnam first, pushing the end of the war back one, may be two years.

What would be the plan if there is no atomic bombs or the red army in august. Would Truman want to invade japan now he would decide to free the rest of the Japanese held area and just blockade and bomb the home islands. I could see an attack in 10/45 on Taiwan to set up a attack on the Japanese held mainland chines areas. than use the coronet forces to stage a attack in march allows the winter months to train the europan units and to contuiued to supply and trained Chinese forces more the 1946 campaign seaon ending in late 1946 or early in 1947.

The atomic bombs do not test successfully. The Soviet Union refuses to invade Manchuria and Korea as part of the deal to end the war in Europe. Phase I of Operation Downfall proceeds in November 1945 with horrific results, drags on into 1946, and takes much longer than anticipated to occupy. This delays the invasion of the main island as well until the summer of 1946 instead of March. This invasion is even bloodier than imagined as well. The accidental killing of the Emperor occurs during a US bombing raid on Tokyo shortly after and occupation of the whole of Japan drags on into the early half of 1947 as a result. An insurgency continues nevertheless for years afterward.

Lot of supposing...

Derek Jackson said:

Suppose Japan had a better shipbuilding capability, having industrialised Korea.

Suppose also carriers were sunk at Pearl Harbor.

Also imagine that Japan somehow finds out codes are compromised and wins at Midway?

Click to expand...

Lot of supposing...

Do the Americans miss this heavily industrialized Korea, somehow?

And everybody understands that Japan didn't feed itself from the home islands by 1945, right?

Best,

redlightning said:

The atomic bombs do not test successfully. The Soviet Union refuses to invade Manchuria and Korea as part of the deal to end the war in Europe. Phase I of Operation Downfall proceeds in November 1945 with horrific results, drags on into 1946, and takes much longer than anticipated to occupy. This delays the invasion of the main island as well until the summer of 1946 instead of March. This invasion is even bloodier than imagined as well. The accidental killing of the Emperor occurs during a US bombing raid on Tokyo shortly after and occupation of the whole of Japan drags on into the early half of 1947 as a result. An insurgency continues nevertheless for years afterward.

Click to expand...

This is not the world of today that would tolerate any kind of insurgency. If they had problems they would just start killing people or withholding food. Even if the US didnt invade it was projected that many people in Japan would starve from lack of food. The US would not care at all about the Japanese if the casualties start to mount and would just start bombing everything. They might even get British help to pull off an operation Vegetarian on Japan.

Don't even have to do that...

Legofan4 said:

This is not the world of today that would tolerate any kind of insurgency. If they had problems they would just start killing people or withholding food. Even if the US didnt invade it was projected that many people in Japan would starve from lack of food. The US would not care at all about the Japanese if the casualties start to mount and would just start bombing everything. They might even get British help to pull off an operation Vegetarian on Japan.

Click to expand...

Don't even have to do that...

Land-based and carrier air power and naval bombardment basically would destroy the Japanese transportation network within a few weeks after Okinawa winds down; no merchant fleet and no functioning railroads puts all of Japan in famine within months, and before 1946.

Plus its winter and no coal is moving...

Best,

TFSmith121 said:

Yeah, but even any of those are (essentially) "minor" in comparison to what the US and the Allies had in the Western Pacific or on its way by the spring-summer of 1945...

Just because these are easy to find, but in terms of aircraft production in 1945 alone, the US manufactured 49,761 a/c (including a large percentage of multi-engined aircraft); Japan got 11,066 out of the factories, almost all of them single-engined.

In 1944, the figures were 96,318 a/c in the US, 28,180 in Japan.

The highest total of aircraft production during the entire war was 67,987 in 1944, between Germany and Japan; the US alone built more than that in 1944 (96,318) and 1943 (85,898).

It's also worth noting that the US built more a/c than the entire Axis (including Italy) did in total in 1941 (26,277 v. 19,264) and in 1942 (47,836 v. 26,670...

All of the above is from Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.

Best,

Click to expand...

I was thinking more in the 1942/1943 timeframe before the US had as many of the late war ships and hardware and units active, and when the Japanese still had some assets to fight with and hadn't lost some of their forward bases yet.

Put a spread of torpedoes into a fully loaded troop ship carrying two or three thousand Marines or Army personnel for example, that's probably going to cause one or two operations somewhere to be slowed down or postponed while another unit is brought forward to make good losses. Not a war winning move by any means, but not exactly something that could be shrugged off either, and having mass casualty sinkings at times during the war wasn't unheard of either, just most of the losses where Japanese or German forces getting blown out of the water.

Well, maybe, but even in 1942-43, the US was

ViperKing said:

I was thinking more in the 1942/1943 timeframe before the US had as many of the late war ships and hardware and units active, and when the Japanese still had some assets to fight with and hadn't lost some of their forward bases yet.

Put a spread of torpedoes into a fully loaded troop ship carrying two or three thousand Marines or Army personnel for example, that's probably going to cause one or two operations somewhere to be slowed down or postponed while another unit is brought forward to make good losses. Not a war winning move by any means, but not exactly something that could be shrugged off either, and having mass casualty sinkings at times during the war wasn't unheard of either, just most of the losses where Japanese or German forces getting blown out of the water.

Click to expand...

Well, maybe, but even in 1942-43, the US was - even with the demands of the ETO - in a position to launch major (divisional to multi-divisional to corps-level) amphibious operations in the Southwest, South, Central, and North Pacific, almost simultaneously.

There's really no way the Japanese can slow that down, and once things really get rolling in 1943-44, it gets even less likely.

As an example, in June, 1944, at the same time the Allies were landing in Normandy, the US forces were landing in the Marianas - with forces (land, sea, and air) that were greater by an order of magnitude than (essentially) what the Japanese had in hand for the initial 1941-42 offensives...

Best,

1946-47 if the US chooses to invade instead of dropping the bomb.

How long do you think the Japanese would last

Kaiser K said:

1946-47 if the US chooses to invade instead of dropping the bomb.

Click to expand...

How long do you think the Japanese would last under air and sea blockade and bombardment of the scale possible after Okinawa was over?

Best,

Kaiser K said:

1946-47 if the US chooses to invade instead of dropping the bomb.

Click to expand...

Why as TFSmith pointed out they are going to be starving to death by that time anyway because of the complete destruction of transportation and no coal will be moving to be used for heat.