American Carriers at Pearl Harbor on Dec 7, 1941

Okay, the US Navy had 7 Aircraft Carriers (CV) on 7 Dec 1941. Of these 3 were part of the Pacific Fleet (Enterprise, Lexington, Saratoga).

Here's the situation on the actual day:

SARATOGA: Just out of drydock, sailing off US West Coast
ENTERPRISE: Steaming back to Pearl after delivering Marine planes to Wake Island.
LEXINGTON: Approaching Midway Island on a training mission.

Here's the Alternate:
SARATOGA: Same place as actual.
ENTERPRISE: At Pearl Harbor (destroyed/sunk)
LEXINGTON: At Pearl Harbor (destroyed/sunk)

Possible Consequences??

Japanese defeated by 1945. They finally surrender following the dropping of the atomic bomb on two of their cities.

I seriously don't think that nothing would change. The Japanese might get more "victory disease" than OTL and do something stupid that cancels out their advantage, but they could also go with their original plan of seizing everything they wanted and fighting defensively from there in hopes of dragging out the war so much that the US decides to negotiate. Think of how much trouble the Japanese fleet from Midway could have done if it wasn't destroyed.

The japanese kept pushing their borders outwards because even with what they had conquered, they still were in no position to fight a long war with the US. Inevitably, US production would have swamped them (one of my favorite stats is that if the Japanese wiped out every ship at Pearl Harbor INCLUDING THE CARRIERS), and completed their building program without interruption, they would still be outnumbered by the USN by late 1943. Japan's overall military/industrial potential (never mind how badly they used it) was about 10% of that of the US. You don't win wars this way...

Regarding Midway, a few points:

1) Midway isn't likely to happen if the Japs win big at Pearl. Midway was designed to draw the carriers that had escaped at Pearl into a trap. It is thus possible that if the Japs had been successful in bagging the carriers, the wouldn't have likely made the change in their overall strategy to go to Midway.

2) Another factor related to (1) is that with heavy carrier losses at Pearl, the Yanks might not have engaged in the Dolittle raid (which was a major reason for the Japs to engage in Midway)

3) Lets assume that (1) and (2) are nonsense, and that I am talking through my hat (wouldn't be the first time...) Even a successful Japanese attack on Midway simply isn't that important due to their inability to provide adequate shipping support. They can take the island (though I wouldn't want to be in the landing force...), but holding it would be another matter entirely. The Japs barely had enough shipping tonnage for their existing conquests (actually they didn't, and more and more as the war went on, they were forced to use warships and subs to supplement their efforts), and these badly extended lines would have been easy meat for USN subs and aircraft. I am not trying to make out that losing Midway would have been a good thing, but it probably wouldn't have been much more than a nuisance for us (much worse for the Japs) in the long run

A wise military maxim is that it takes 3 men attacking to overcome 1 man defending, and the Japanese were unbelievably ferocious in battle. We'd outclass them in terms of production (we'd have more than the triple capacity needed for the "3 men attacking" scenario), but we'd also be fighting Italy and Germany at the same time. That, and both theaters of war would be on the the other side of vast oceans.

Besides, fighting a more defensive conflict would provide incentive for the Japanese to use their submarines better and come up with a better anti-sub doctrine; according to Goralski's "Oil and War," that was a very BIG problem with the Japanese strategy.

I doubt we'd have lost the war or that Japan would have done much better, but it seems the war would be longer. Japan didn't have the strength to be much of a threat to the US. Without the carriers, there would be no Doolittle raid, and no battle at Midway. The US would be unable to attack anything Japanese in the Pacific for a while, but the Japanese would be busy in China and SE Asia as well. One big change would be that the Japanese would consolidate their hold on Guadalcanal, making it's capture that much harder. Still though, the US is going to build a huge navy and come roaring back. The war will be extended by... 6 months to a year?

David:
Won't that just mean 3 or 4 nukes instead of 2?

maybe... do you think the US would use them all though? Wouldn't they still try to make them surrender after two uses, as in OTL? I'd think they'd want to save a couple....

David Howery said:

I doubt we'd have lost the war or that Japan would have done much better, but it seems the war would be longer. Japan didn't have the strength to be much of a threat to the US. Without the carriers, there would be no Doolittle raid, and no battle at Midway. The US would be unable to attack anything Japanese in the Pacific for a while, but the Japanese would be busy in China and SE Asia as well. One big change would be that the Japanese would consolidate their hold on Guadalcanal, making it's capture that much harder. Still though, the US is going to build a huge navy and come roaring back. The war will be extended by... 6 months to a year?

Click to expand...

Interesting points. Just like what Yamamoto said when he said he'd run wild. But when I put up this thread I was thinking of these possible scenarios unfolding and complicating matters for the US/Allies.

1) Could the Japanese have won Coral Sea and threaten Australia?
2) Could the Japanese have taken Midway and threaten and possibly invade the Hawaiian Islands (and thereby making things that much harder on the Americans in the Pacific)?

no carriers = no coral sea, or at least no battle there. With the US effectively out of the war for a while, will the Japanese bother with Australia?
with no Doolittle raid, will there be a Midway battle? IIRC, plans for the attack on Midway were drawn up but the military leaders decided against it until after the raid.
Hmm... could the US reinforce the Hawaiian islands? With the one carrier left, they could ferry planes from the mainland to Pearl, and there would be plenty of ships to carry troops and vehicles there. It would take Japan a lot of effort to take Midway (although they could certainly succeed) and even more to attack Hawaii... by the time they got everything together, I'd think we'd have reinforced it beyond any capacity they have to take it. In fact, with no carriers, I'd think Hawaii would be priority one....

Where are we getting this 'no carriers' nonsense from? The Hornet, the Yorktown, and the Saratoga all would have been in fine shape, and were all deployed to the Pacific in OTL anyway. All that sinking the E and the Lex would have done is to accelerate (somewhat) those deployments. Hence Coral Sea would likely have occurred anyway, and the Japanese wouldn't have had much more luck with Guadacanal than they did in OTL. Unless anyone here believes that the US was simply going to abandon the Pacific for a year or so (anyone?....Buehler?....<crickets chirping>....) you simply get some small delays in the timing of most (not all, but most) of the major battles. Japans horrific logistics problems are still going to put a leash on the IJN, and the production differential is more than enough to drive the japs into the ground eventually.

Matt: Your point about the 3:1 maxim is disproven by the very success of the Japanese (who were badly outnumbered in ALL of their early battles) in the first place. Firepower is a wonderful equalizer, as the American military experience in virtually any war we have fought will tell you. The bigger empire and longer supply lines would have made the situation for the japs worse, not better, and there was essentially no chance of the IJN improving its doctrine or tactics, no matter what the provocations. The biggest problem for the IJN was cultural, the real 'movers' in their officer corps went into aviation and battleships, to a MUCH lesser degree into subs. Destroyers and smaller escort ships got the leavings, as this was regarded as a defensive (i.e. not a warrior's profession) assignment. On the positive side, this did get the japs into convoys earlier than the allies did, but with such poor escorts, convoys simply made the job of finding the targets easier. The victory disease that the IJN suffered from (which would only have been worse in this TL) led them to conclude that 'offensive spirit' would overcome material deficiencies. This attitude persisted right up to the surrender, why do you think it would change here? Sorry, but the idea of the Japs picking up an improved defensive doctrine (which would only have made their defeat more expensive in the long run) is strictly ASB.

PSG479 said:

1) Could the Japanese have won Coral Sea and threaten Australia?
2) Could the Japanese have taken Midway and threaten and possibly invade the Hawaiian Islands (and thereby making things that much harder on the Americans in the Pacific)?

Click to expand...

The Japanese had no ability to invade the Hawaiian Islands. Firstly, I suggest you take a look in the archives for this topic has been often discussed on the Board in the past. I recommend that you read an essay located at www.combinedfleet.com about the lack of Japanese logistical capability to invade Hawaii.

No Doolittle Raid. There is still a need for a carrier to ferry fighters to Malta. Hornet instead of Lexington at First Coral Sea. IMO it's 50/50 that either Hornet or Yorktown is sunk at that battle. If that occurs you see Ranger in the Pacific. Escort carriers could--and would-- be used for Operation Torch instead on Ranger. Midway is unlikely but possible. More likely is Second Coral Sea. There is some possibility ffor a Japanese victory there but all that does is push back the Solomons offensive until the first two Essex class carriers are available.

So a better 1942 for Japan is possibility but the Americans converge towards the historic schedule in late 1943 and 1944.

Surprised nobody has commented on the possibility of Halsey going down with Enterprise. Yes the USN could still prevail without Halsey the Great though a journalist or two might expire from ennui without him.

World War Two was a colossal mismatch. Axis lose.

Halsey was a horrifically overrated commander. Losing him at Pearl, though definitely a loss for journalists looking for a good story, would have minimal impact.

Of course, this brings up a different issue. If the carriers were at dock on 12/7/41, just how sure are we that they would be sunk? Only two permanent BB losses occured from Pearl, and one of those was when the ship was being towed to the West Coast. Carriers are inherently easier to repair than BBs, there is at least some chance that at least one of them might survive.

Regarding requiring a CV for ferrying aircraft to Malta, I suspect that given the losses we are discussing, the Brits might well be told to risk their own ships for a change...

Malta Convoys

Scott Rosenthal said:

Regarding requiring a CV for ferrying aircraft to Malta, I suspect that given the losses we are discussing, the Brits might well be told to risk their own ships for a change...

Click to expand...

Now I don't know if this last part is there to bait & tempt us, but for two years it was the RN who risked their ships supplying Malta. Many were sunk for their efforts.

And then from the US entry in WW2, the RN still did most of the Malta convoy work. But don't take my word for it - here's a link that's most useful: http://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignsMaltaConvoys.htm


Cheers

DMA said:

Now I don't know if this last part is there to bait & tempt us, but for two years it was the RN who risked their ships supplying Malta. Many were sunk for their efforts.

And then from the US entry in WW2, the RN still did most of the Malta convoy work. But don't take my word for it - here's a link that's most useful: http://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignsMaltaConvoys.htm


Cheers

Click to expand...

Agreed, I hate it when people do that. Basically all the parties to the war stressed what they were best at (overall compared to other things THEY did): the Nazis were the best at tatics and operations , the Japanese were best at naval operations, the Brits were best at sea power , the Russians were best at providing tank fodder and the US was best at production.

CAP

If the Carriers were at Pearl with a Morning CAP sheduleded maybe there would have been enuff warning to launch a Defense.

If the carriers were at dock (which almost everything at Pearl was that Sunday), then there would be no CAP. CAP requires the carriers to be able to launch aircraft, which requires the carriers to be able to get up steam at sea.

More to the point, any CAP that the carriers could have put up would have been trivial compared to the landbased CAP that also wasn't up. This was pre-WWII (naturally), the idea of putting up CAP on a sleepy Sunday morning simply wasn't in the cards...

Carriers destroyed

I would expect any carriers at Pearl to be either destroyed completely, or at least sunk and in need of West Virginia scale repairs, for two reasons.
1. Carriers are not as well protected as battleships. Hits that did little to some of the battleships would be devastating. If one tries tpo make for the open sea like Nevada did, she's probably sunk in the channel.
2. The carriers were the prime target, so each one would probably recieve at least twice the attackers that any given battleship recieved.

Actually, the battleships were the primary target, at the very least certainly in the case of the weapons that would really do the most damage (i.e. the torpedos, of which there were VERY few at Pearl) Even if this were not the case, the normal mooring points for the carriers left them less immediately vulnerable to torpedos than were the battleships.

As to dive-bombers (the other real threat), there is little doubt that these could have severely wounded the carriers, but at-dock carriers aren't going to be nearly as vulnerable as they would be at sea (no open magazines, no fuel lines on deck, planes neatly stowed, etc.), and suffer types of damage far different from heavily armored vessels in any case. The wooden decks of the carriers would be splinters by the time the battle was over, and there is little doubt that damage in general would be heavy. That said, most of the damage would be far more easily repaired than was the case with the battleships (I love them too NHBL, but they were hopelessly obsolete by this time...), which required special facilities that Pearl didn't have. Consider the case of the Yorktown, the Enterprise, etc. all of which took very severe damage and all of which remained pretty much serviceable. My best guess is that the hangers would be damaged (most of the planes in them written off), and the death toll would be horrifying. As callous as this sounds, however, planes and sailors are relatively easily replaced (the latter by unskilled labor that enjoys its work)...

Once again, I don't doubt that the damage would be heavy, but I simply don't see it requiring the sort of major surgery that the BBs required.